4 ms·

Pregnancies from rape occurring in abortion-ban states

70 points by hn_acker 3y ago

jfengel 3y ago
Original headline adds crucial context: Tens of thousands of pregnancies from rape occurring in abortion-ban states In particular, it's pointing out that the exceptions for rape are difficult to use. There are few facilities that can perform the procedure, and they are rarely nearby. So the nominal exception turns out to not really exist in practice, and large numbers of raped women are in fact being forced to carry involuntary pregnancies to term.
- sp332 3y ago
  I think leading numbers are automatically removed from post headlines. The submitter can then edit the post and add the numbers back if they want.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > So the nominal exception turns out to not really exist in practice That's a way too common topic - it's just the same with unemployment insurance or a range of other social benefits, or the right to claim asylum... it exists on paper but the hurdles placed in front of accessing said benefits make them all but useless.
ijhuygft776 3y ago
fetuses are not babies... and why would you want someone reminding you of a rape, daily?
- amatecha 3y ago
  Not to mention, agency over one's corporeal self essentially dictates the right to abortion. I uncompromisingly assert the right to decide what happens to my body and decide what medical procedures to undergo.
  - kingstoned 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - amatecha 3y ago
      They sure can. It's their right[0]. It might be a bad choice, but it's theirs to make. There are enough sensible people to attain a good % of vaccination for whatever transmissible illness. We can avoid trampling on others' rights by ensuring a high standard of education -- the problem solves itself when people understand how/why things work the way they do. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/... (article 3)
    - orwin 3y ago
      Yes! I think its fair though to have schools refusing to accept unvaccinated people if immunodeficient kids are present (and refuse non-vaccinated nurses in immunology and cancer wards), but absolutely, you should decide by yourself.
      - jMyles 3y ago
        Even those requirements need to be underpinned by clear evidence of a sterilizing effect of the vaccine in question. (And I'm curious: by your logic, do you support re-adoption of the oral polio vaccine? Some interesting developments: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/polio/who-prequalifies-next-generation-oral-polio-vaccine https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/polio/who-prequalifies-next-gener...)
    - jMyles 3y ago
      ...of... course. Particularly following the shoddy rollouts of the past few years, and the Gruber and Krause resignations, and the general limelight shown on VRBPAC and the FDA processes, it's pretty obvious that coercive uptake creates a set of horrible incentives. I'd think that's one of the lessons enjoying consensus henceforth. Good vaccines are sufficiently awesome to drive adoption by dint of their effects. The most palpable effect of coercion is the presence of subpar vaccines on the market, tarnishing the reputation vaccination as a concept - which of course is dangerous for public health.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago
  The cruelty is the point. The people making and passing these laws and people voting for the people to do it want this cruelty. They crave it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - gremlinsinc 3y ago
    They think, maybe rightfully so that this hurts the out group more than the in group (minorities), disclaimer: I'm a white male, except say that group is black or Hispanic, and have families that tend to vote the opposite way, then they're in effect hurting their own power hold by forcing more births. They're so worried about immigrants taking jobs what about the anti abortion baby boom making jobs more scarce in 18 or 20 years, and changing whole political landscapes?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- throw0101d 3y ago
  > fetuses are not babies... This probably is the central question on this topic: * When does the gamete/zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/whatever go from being not-human to being human? Next: * Just because it is/may be human, is it owed anything? [0] Peter Singer for example has argued (in the past?) that even up to ~two years of age, the 'entity' should not be considered human: > In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood. > Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[65]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".[66] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Euthanasia_and_infanticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Euthanasia_and_in... The various positions on the topic, if taken to their logical end, may lead to conclusions that folks may not realize if they haven't thought about it thoroughly: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_aspects_of_the_abortion_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_aspects_of_the_a... [0] Thomson for one argued that we do not,[1] and even if you were (e.g.) in a cabin in the woods,[2] and one day there was a bay left on your front door, you could step over it and without any moral qualms [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion [2] > Some philosophers, like Thomson, think so, but very many philosophers disagree. If I live alone in the woods and wake one day to find an infant on my doorstep, am I obligated to care for it? Or may I simply step over it and go on about my day, until it dies from exposure and neglect? To think I am obligated in justice to help it, as a great many people (philosophers and non-philosophers alike) do, is to think we owe things to other people simply because they are people. And if we can owe things to other people simply because they are people, then Thomson’s argument falls apart. If the fetus becomes a person long before birth — as even Thomson concedes — and if we can owe things to people simply because they are people, then we can owe things to the fetus as well, long before birth. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/philosophy-not-religion-is-at-the-heart-of-the-abortion-debate/ https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/phi... [2] https://archive.is/y3DVM https://archive.is/y3DVM
amatecha 3y ago
"Fourteen states have banned abortions at any gestational age" ... Wow, I wasn't aware the number was that high. That's pretty dire. :(
- maroonblazer 3y ago
  Agree, along with the fact that there've been 65K rapes just since Roe was overturned. I don't know what number I was expecting but certainly nothing that high. That's horrifying.
  - gremlinsinc 3y ago
    that's only in those 14 states and that's only rapes resulting in pregnancy, I'm sure there's like 10x as many just in those states, I mean how often does intercourse not turn into pregnancy randomly, since there's only a small fertility window per month.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    65k pregnancies. Over half a million instances of rape. Yeah.
spiderice 3y ago
> To estimate state-level rapes, they proportioned the rapes by states based on the FBI's 2022 crime data, which includes rapes. They then multiplied each state's rapes by the fraction of rapes likely to result in pregnancy. And finally, adjusted for the months between July 1, 2022 and January 1, 2024 that an abortion ban was in effect in each of the 14 states. Among the 14 states, the number of months in which a ban was in effect ranged from four to 18 months. So they played around with numbers until they got a result they liked? Come on. This “study” is just rage bait.
- ctrl-j 3y ago
  Would you really call adjusting a statistical window "playing around with numbers"? It doesn't look like they tried multiple parameters to get a result they liked, they just looked at the time frame that made sense.
- MathMonkeyMan 3y ago
  Maybe so, but if the logic is sound, then that's a reasonable estimate of rape pregnancies, and the interesting observation is that the number of legal abortions in that time was way smaller. More interesting would be to know what percentage of rape pregnancies were aborted before a state made abortion illegal.
praptak 3y ago
Is there at least a law to deprive the rapist of parental rights? Otherwise it is a very evil loophole allowing one to benefit from a very serious crime.
- grecy 3y ago
  ...and force them to pay 10x child support for life, at a minimum
- MattGaiser 3y ago
  In some states, even a conviction for rape doesn't terminate parental rights. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/man-raped-12-old-awarded-114904992.html https://ca.news.yahoo.com/man-raped-12-old-awarded-114904992... This man raped a child, was convicted of raping that child, was convicted of raping another child, and then successfully sued said child for access to the offspring conceived in court.
- Tryanasorus 3y ago
  [flagged]
Thri4895o 3y ago
> only 10 or fewer legal abortions per month It puts all non-profits into really bad light! Administrative work like filing police reports, should be their main focus to help victims!
- Arn_Thor 3y ago
  No it doesn’t. The law’s application is ambiguous and the public discourse is rife with stories of doctors that won’t take the risk because the punishment is drastic and the legal details have yet to be properly established. Simply put, the non-profits can’t find enough doctors to perform the abortions. And (need I point this out??) this is all utterly unnecessary
sharts 3y ago
What was the percentage rate of abortions from rape previously?
spiderxxxx 3y ago
That was happening before the ban, just people could do something about it, but it doesn't mean a pregnancy didn't occur.

70 points by hn_acker 3y ago

Original headline adds crucial context: Tens of thousands of pregnancies from rape occurring in abortion-ban states In particular, it's pointing out that the exceptions for rape are difficult to use. There are few facilities that can perform the procedure, and they are rarely nearby. So the nominal exception turns out to not really exist in practice, and large numbers of raped women are in fact being forced to carry involuntary pregnancies to term.

sp332 3y ago
I think leading numbers are automatically removed from post headlines. The submitter can then edit the post and add the numbers back if they want.
mschuster91 3y ago
> So the nominal exception turns out to not really exist in practice That's a way too common topic - it's just the same with unemployment insurance or a range of other social benefits, or the right to claim asylum... it exists on paper but the hurdles placed in front of accessing said benefits make them all but useless.

ijhuygft776 3y ago

fetuses are not babies... and why would you want someone reminding you of a rape, daily?

amatecha 3y ago
Not to mention, agency over one's corporeal self essentially dictates the right to abortion. I uncompromisingly assert the right to decide what happens to my body and decide what medical procedures to undergo.
- kingstoned 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - amatecha 3y ago
    They sure can. It's their right[0]. It might be a bad choice, but it's theirs to make. There are enough sensible people to attain a good % of vaccination for whatever transmissible illness. We can avoid trampling on others' rights by ensuring a high standard of education -- the problem solves itself when people understand how/why things work the way they do. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/... (article 3)
  - orwin 3y ago
    Yes! I think its fair though to have schools refusing to accept unvaccinated people if immunodeficient kids are present (and refuse non-vaccinated nurses in immunology and cancer wards), but absolutely, you should decide by yourself.
    - jMyles 3y ago
      Even those requirements need to be underpinned by clear evidence of a sterilizing effect of the vaccine in question. (And I'm curious: by your logic, do you support re-adoption of the oral polio vaccine? Some interesting developments: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/polio/who-prequalifies-next-generation-oral-polio-vaccine https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/polio/who-prequalifies-next-gener...)
  - jMyles 3y ago
    ...of... course. Particularly following the shoddy rollouts of the past few years, and the Gruber and Krause resignations, and the general limelight shown on VRBPAC and the FDA processes, it's pretty obvious that coercive uptake creates a set of horrible incentives. I'd think that's one of the lessons enjoying consensus henceforth. Good vaccines are sufficiently awesome to drive adoption by dint of their effects. The most palpable effect of coercion is the presence of subpar vaccines on the market, tarnishing the reputation vaccination as a concept - which of course is dangerous for public health.
HumblyTossed 3y ago
The cruelty is the point. The people making and passing these laws and people voting for the people to do it want this cruelty. They crave it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- gremlinsinc 3y ago
  They think, maybe rightfully so that this hurts the out group more than the in group (minorities), disclaimer: I'm a white male, except say that group is black or Hispanic, and have families that tend to vote the opposite way, then they're in effect hurting their own power hold by forcing more births. They're so worried about immigrants taking jobs what about the anti abortion baby boom making jobs more scarce in 18 or 20 years, and changing whole political landscapes?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throw0101d 3y ago
> fetuses are not babies... This probably is the central question on this topic: * When does the gamete/zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/whatever go from being not-human to being human? Next: * Just because it is/may be human, is it owed anything? [0] Peter Singer for example has argued (in the past?) that even up to ~two years of age, the 'entity' should not be considered human: > In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood. > Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[65]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".[66] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Euthanasia_and_infanticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Euthanasia_and_in... The various positions on the topic, if taken to their logical end, may lead to conclusions that folks may not realize if they haven't thought about it thoroughly: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_aspects_of_the_abortion_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_aspects_of_the_a... [0] Thomson for one argued that we do not,[1] and even if you were (e.g.) in a cabin in the woods,[2] and one day there was a bay left on your front door, you could step over it and without any moral qualms [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion [2] > Some philosophers, like Thomson, think so, but very many philosophers disagree. If I live alone in the woods and wake one day to find an infant on my doorstep, am I obligated to care for it? Or may I simply step over it and go on about my day, until it dies from exposure and neglect? To think I am obligated in justice to help it, as a great many people (philosophers and non-philosophers alike) do, is to think we owe things to other people simply because they are people. And if we can owe things to other people simply because they are people, then Thomson’s argument falls apart. If the fetus becomes a person long before birth — as even Thomson concedes — and if we can owe things to people simply because they are people, then we can owe things to the fetus as well, long before birth. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/philosophy-not-religion-is-at-the-heart-of-the-abortion-debate/ https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/phi... [2] https://archive.is/y3DVM https://archive.is/y3DVM

amatecha 3y ago

"Fourteen states have banned abortions at any gestational age" ... Wow, I wasn't aware the number was that high. That's pretty dire. :(

maroonblazer 3y ago
Agree, along with the fact that there've been 65K rapes just since Roe was overturned. I don't know what number I was expecting but certainly nothing that high. That's horrifying.
- gremlinsinc 3y ago
  that's only in those 14 states and that's only rapes resulting in pregnancy, I'm sure there's like 10x as many just in those states, I mean how often does intercourse not turn into pregnancy randomly, since there's only a small fertility window per month.
- falcolas 3y ago
  65k pregnancies. Over half a million instances of rape. Yeah.

spiderice 3y ago

> To estimate state-level rapes, they proportioned the rapes by states based on the FBI's 2022 crime data, which includes rapes. They then multiplied each state's rapes by the fraction of rapes likely to result in pregnancy. And finally, adjusted for the months between July 1, 2022 and January 1, 2024 that an abortion ban was in effect in each of the 14 states. Among the 14 states, the number of months in which a ban was in effect ranged from four to 18 months. So they played around with numbers until they got a result they liked? Come on. This “study” is just rage bait.

ctrl-j 3y ago
Would you really call adjusting a statistical window "playing around with numbers"? It doesn't look like they tried multiple parameters to get a result they liked, they just looked at the time frame that made sense.
MathMonkeyMan 3y ago
Maybe so, but if the logic is sound, then that's a reasonable estimate of rape pregnancies, and the interesting observation is that the number of legal abortions in that time was way smaller. More interesting would be to know what percentage of rape pregnancies were aborted before a state made abortion illegal.

praptak 3y ago

Is there at least a law to deprive the rapist of parental rights? Otherwise it is a very evil loophole allowing one to benefit from a very serious crime.

grecy 3y ago
...and force them to pay 10x child support for life, at a minimum
MattGaiser 3y ago
In some states, even a conviction for rape doesn't terminate parental rights. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/man-raped-12-old-awarded-114904992.html https://ca.news.yahoo.com/man-raped-12-old-awarded-114904992... This man raped a child, was convicted of raping that child, was convicted of raping another child, and then successfully sued said child for access to the offspring conceived in court.
Tryanasorus 3y ago
[flagged]

Thri4895o 3y ago

> only 10 or fewer legal abortions per month It puts all non-profits into really bad light! Administrative work like filing police reports, should be their main focus to help victims!

Arn_Thor 3y ago
No it doesn’t. The law’s application is ambiguous and the public discourse is rife with stories of doctors that won’t take the risk because the punishment is drastic and the legal details have yet to be properly established. Simply put, the non-profits can’t find enough doctors to perform the abortions. And (need I point this out??) this is all utterly unnecessary

sharts 3y ago

What was the percentage rate of abortions from rape previously?

spiderxxxx 3y ago

That was happening before the ban, just people could do something about it, but it doesn't mean a pregnancy didn't occur.