Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery misogyny rape reactionary bullshit Uncategorized violence against men/women

>The Republicans take aim at pregnant rape victims.

>

He’s not crying for pregnant rape victims.

Let’s take a brief break from the man boobz on the internet to look at the man (and some women) boobz in Congress, specifically the Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) who are trying to push through a truly odious bill, The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, designed to make it harder for women who have been raped to get abortions. Here’s how the SF Chronicle sums it up:

Current law allows federal funds (usually for Medicaid) to be spent on abortions only for women who have been raped or are the victims of incest. We think those restrictions are bad enough, but the new class of House Republicans want more. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would outlaw the use of federal funds for abortion except in the case of “forcible rape.” The incest exemption would only apply to minors.

“Forcible rape” doesn’t have a legal definition, but in general the idea is to exclude pregnancies that result from date rape, statutory rape or rapes that happen when women are physically incapacitated.

So if you’re drugged and raped, and you get pregnant, too bad. If your father rapes you, and you get pregnant, too bad. Those rapes apparently don’t count.

As Amanda Marcotte puts it, the bill’s sponsors apparently

believe the misogynist stereotype that all women, especially those who claim to be ill or victims of crimes, are lying whores until proven otherwise.  Or just lying whores, regardless of the evidence they produce.  And so, to make sure those lying whores don’t get their hands on those delicious, orgasm-inducing uterine scrapings, the bill has language in it that, in essence, assumes that 70% of rape victims weren’t really raped.  The exception is only for “forcible rape”, which is vaguely defined, but in practice tends to mean that anything short of getting your ass beat down means you weren’t “really” raped.  Even if you’re a 13-year-old who was impregnated by a 30-year-old.  Also, if you happen to get pregnant by your abusive, rape-y father on your 18th birthday, you will get no funding to make sure you don’t give birth to your own brother.

In Salon, Sady Doyle puts the Republican push for the bill in a larger context, noting that the bill’s reference to “forcible rape”

brings us back to an ancient, long-outdated standard of rape law: “Utmost resistance.” By this standard, a rape verdict depended not on whether the victim consented, but on whether outsiders thought she resisted as hard as humanly possible. Survivors rarely measured up.

Meanwhile, Time magazine’s Amy Sullivan tried to figure out if there really were a lot of “false rape claims” being by made by wily money-hungry young pregnant women in an attempt to bilk the government out of money.  The answer, of course, is no.

Eligibility rules … differ by state, but many states are like Tennessee, which requires a doctor to certify that “there is credible evidence to believe that the pregnancy is the result of rape” and to attach “documentation from a law enforcement agency indicating the patient has made a credible report as the victim of incest or rape” before Medicaid will consider issuing payment for an abortion procedure. …

So that scourge of false rape reports–or even, let’s say, “non-forcible” rapes? It doesn’t exist. I couldn’t find numbers more recent than 2001, but these shocked me. In that year, the total number of abortions covered by Medicaid was 56. That’s all abortions for cases in which the mother’s life was in danger, the pregnancy was a result of incest, or in the case of rape. Another 25 were covered by state Medicaid programs. Even assuming that every single one of those abortions was to end a pregnancy caused by rape, that’s 81 abortions paid for in part with taxpayer dollars. Nationwide. That’s roughly $32,000 total for first trimester procedures.

So, yeah, this is not exactly what is busting the budget. Indeed, I imagine there are many rape victims who choose to pay out of pocket for an abortion, even if they can’t really afford it, rather than going through the humiliation of trying to prove they’ve been raped to the satisfaction of government bureaucrats.

UPDATE: The Republicans have removed the “forcible rape” language from the bill. But there is still plenty about the bill to hate. 

If you’re American, and want to do something about this bill, here’s one practical suggestion: There are a number of Democrats who have signed on to co-sponsor the bill. I suggest you contact them and let them know how you feel. You can find info on how to contact them on Pandagon.

Or you can contact your representative by clicking on the banner below:


 

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

90 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Yohan
9 years ago

>Elizabeth said… I feel like fainting-does anyone notice that Yohan is being, for once, rather sensible about an issue? Well, the legal situation about rape/abortion is also an important issue for MRAs, concerning especially married men and father's rights. Can you imagine, you are married, with wife and children, and some gangsters are attacking your wife and she gets pregnant because of that?How can this family be forced to accept this child among their other children? How can you be a father for this unwanted child? Generally, I think, 12 – 14 weeks should be OK to regulate such sensitive issues regarding abortion for any woman. I consider 3 months as a good time-out. The woman should decide alone during this time, no questions, no objections.However if feminists argue, it's OK for the girl because her boyfriend disappeared to demand an abortion after being 8 months pregnant AND even is demanding the health care should pay for that because she is now psycho – that's an absolutely NO. She should give birth and go ahead with adoption in such a situation.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Yohan-what I said was a joke. You were supposed to laugh and go "whatever."John-I addressed your concerns and by the way, in my view, the woman outranks the fetus. She gets consideration before the fetus does. That said-I fully support both comprehensive sex ed including teaching that sex can wait for BOTH genders and empowerment for both genders in learning to say no when they are not ready, as well as prenatal and post natal assistance for women of all levels of society.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>That is why I am shocked you are being reasonable about this Yohan-most of what you are saying is a compromise between the extreme of John in saying NO WAY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE and the opposite of THE WOMAN DECIDES WHENEVER SHE WANTS TO.

Yohan
9 years ago

> jupiter9 said… (Yohan) Anyway, distances between EU-countries are short, so what you cannot get in one country you get in another even without a passport…1. She has to pay to travel, pay for the abortion, pay to return.You can nowhere in this world expect, that any medical care you request is 24/365 available in front of your house free of charge.There are plenty of people who pay for any kind of medical care. Are all dental works free of charge? Do you not pay for your eye-glasses? You want to remove a scar or wart? What about visiting a spa for elderly people who are suffering of rheumatism?Do they not travel? Do they not have various expenses in relation to their medical problem?Even with health care insurance you have to pay sometimes for certain expenses at least a part by yourself.

Yohan
9 years ago

>Elizabeth said… That is why I am shocked you are being reasonable about this Yohan- MRAs are not all the same, some are religious, some are not – some are from USA, some are from Europe or elsewhere, etc. etc.Some men will be even very happy if their girlfriend agrees with abortion – not all men (and not all women) like a family with children…Opinions of men regarding abortion are very much divided. Just my opinion: Men cannot know easily, if a woman is pregnant within the first 3 months. – So why to create legal problems for her which are unnecessary?

jupiter9
9 years ago

>"I believe that every parent is morally obligated to protect and provide for their offspring, and I believe that a fertilized egg is every bit as human as a fully-grown adult (it's certainly not a cow or a chicken; it's manifestly human). The difference is only a matter of development."A tumor is human and alive. You must allow it to grow freely, then, right?Your belief that a fertilized egg is equal to a fully-grown adult isn't shared by everyone.

Yohan
9 years ago

> 1 -JohnDiasI believe that a fertilized egg is every bit as human as a fully-grown adult 2 -jupiter9A tumor is human and alive. You must allow it to grow freely, then, right? These are truly best examples for explaining the extreme point of view from both sides.1 -Something must be wrong here, but I do not know really how to explain it. Let me try.I do not think, a human fertilized egg is as human as a fully-grown adult.It's about to say a chicken and an egg is the same food.What is next? PETA telling me not to eat chicken because chicken are smart, and in future PETA will tell me not to eat eggs, because they are as animals as chicken?2 -To compare a human foetus with a malicious tumor is bizarre. It is also highly derogatory towards pregnant women who do not consider an abortion and are looking forward to birth.Pregnancy is NOT an internal ailment.

Kave
9 years ago

>John DiasJust to clarify:Does this mean you support demands that fathers pay child support

John Dias
9 years ago

>@jupiter9:"A tumor is human and alive. You must allow it to grow freely, then, right?"No tumor will ever become an adult human being over time. But a human child will most certainly grow into an adult, given time and nourishment. The fact that the child is not an adult does not strip the child of its humanity."Your belief that a fertilized egg is equal to a fully-grown adult isn't shared by everyone."I quote the great Morpheus, from the Matrix:"My beliefs do not require them to." :-)Nevertheless, when Roe v. Wade is overturned, the states will once again have legal authority to set abortion policy by the will of the people, and in several states at least, this will in fact reflect the majority view of the people. Speaking of majorities, according to a Zogby poll, a majority of people surveyed support legal restrictions on abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest or threat to the mother's life. [Source]

John Dias
9 years ago

>@Kave:"Just to clarify, does this mean you support demands that fathers pay child support?"Why should you have to pay child support if you're a fit parent who legally has at least 50% parenting time? So to sum up, NO.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@ClarenceComments:"John Dias: You totally forgot about the whole 'bodily autonomy' thing, didn't you?"See the second comment in this thread, written by me. I most certainly respect the unborn child's right to bodily autonomy. (And yes, I realize that your question emphasizes the mother's point of view, but I prioritize the right of the child as highest except in cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, such as with an ectopic pregnancy).

Yohan
9 years ago

>Kave said… Kave said… John DiasJust to clarify:Does this mean you support demands that fathers pay child support @KaveDo you support jail sentences for dead-beat mothers, who fail to pay child-support to fathers if the children are living with him and not with her?

Yohan
9 years ago

>John Dias: Speaking of majorities, according to a Zogby poll, a majority of people surveyed support legal restrictions on abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest or threat to the mother's life. Interesting reading about the situation in USA,these results are a surprise as you might expect the entire female population is with vote for the feminists.I see, my opinion, 3 months legal, is truly an outsider opinion without any hope of majority, but I am not living in the USA.Abortions legal for any reason during first 3 months 25%It would be interesting if there are some new data available, this poll is from April 2004, about 7 years ago. Also typically for the USA, different regions often show very different results.In EU and and in some Asian countries, most people have no problem with the 'first 3 months regulation'.About Europe, I found this link posted by MissPrism as very informative. She does not share my opinion about the abortion issue, but this is another matter. 12-14 weeks is very common.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6235557.stm

Kave
9 years ago

>John Dias said:I believe that every parent is morally obligated to protect and provide for their offspring.Unless their a dad. For the record I believe if a bio dad does not choose to be one he should not be forced.

Kave
9 years ago

>Here is the thing about the 50/50 custody arguement. If the children are old enough to take care of themselves then it works fine. But if they are young someone has to stay home with them. Why would I pay 14$ an hour to hire a full-time nanny when their mother is there? Parenting is a full-time job. If you have a full-time job then someone else needs to be there for the kids.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@Kave:"Why would I pay 14$ an hour to hire a full-time nanny when their mother is there?"Because in divorce, the Family Court could see this as a sign that you're de-facto ceding your parenting time to the other parent, and this will give the other parent the right to demand that you lose whatever percentage of parenting time that the other parent was exercising during your time (even though you were paying her).It's all about court-imposed obligations. The divorced mother shouldn't be exempt from being just as much of a financial provider as you are. In my state, California, you're entitled by statute to submit a motion to the family court to order the other parent to seek full-time work, and in the alternative to impute income to the other parent. A divorcing providing father should definitely utilize his rights to obligate the other parent to provide an equal financial share, hopefully to whatever degree that the net child support obligor ends up paying close to zero to the other parent. If you both have equal parenting time percentages, then you should both be providing and parenting equally; child support obligations (and the related penalties for not paying child support, such as incarceration, wage garnishments and loss of driving license) should be out of the picture entirely.

jupiter9
9 years ago

>"No tumor will ever become an adult human being over time."You haven't met my ex-boyfriend.Many fertilized eggs don't become adult human beings, either. Estimates are that about half of them just don't make it, for various reasons.If God/Nature/chance throws away half of them, what's the big deal if we throw away a few more? They're apparently not all that valuable.An unwanted pregnancy and a tumor are equally valuable to the woman carrying them.

Yohan
9 years ago

>jupiter9 said… An unwanted pregnancy and a tumor are equally valuable to the woman carrying them. What an ugly despicable view about human life -what else can we expect from feminism?Pregnancy is NOT an internal ailment!

John Dias
9 years ago

>@jupiter9:"An unwanted pregnancy and a tumor are equally valuable to the woman carrying them…"But the intrinsic value of an intact living human being vastly exceeds a that of unliving flesh that — in itself — is not now, nor ever was, an intact human being. The intrinsic value of human life is not nullified simply because a particular child is callously not wanted by its mother. Subjective valuations of human life are transitory anyway; what if the mother values the baby long enough to give birth, but thereafter stops wanting the baby? Does that justify her (or anyone else) dismembering the baby in cold-blooded murder? In any humane and decent paradigm, not at all."If God/Nature/chance throws away half of them, what's the big deal if we throw away a few more?"Untold legions of born people die for various reasons every day, all over the world — whether due to acts of God, nature or chance. Are you suggesting that it's no big deal if a few more not only die, but are intentionally butchered through dismemberment or chemical burning? There's simply no morally justified defense to your reasoning; in my view it's completely indefensible.Yohan wrote:"What an ugly despicable view about human life- – what else can we expect from feminism?"It's not just feminism that reasons this way, but any belief system that reduces the perceived inherent value of a human being to that conferred upon it by one specific other. But yes, to the degree that the feminist ideologue places such a low value on the life of a defenseless baby that she supports dismembering and/or chemically burning that baby for completely elective reasons, feminism loses all moral credibility in my view.

Yohan
9 years ago

>jupiter9 said… An unwanted pregnancy and a tumor are equally valuable to the woman carrying them It's a big difference between an UNWANTED pregnancy done out of consensual sex resulting of missing contraceptives and condomes – or a pregnancy due to FORCED sexual contact against the will of the woman (violent rape).MOST unwanted pregnancies are NOT forced and can be easily avoided if proper prevention is taken seriously by the woman.Growing of tumors, an internal ailment, cannot be avoided by swallowing a pill or using condoms.To compare cancer with a pregnancy considering both to be equal annoyances – that's truly feminist cruel mindset.

Yohan
9 years ago

>http://www.thelocal.se/19392/20090512/Sweden rules 'gender-based' abortion legalSwedish health authorities have ruled that gender-based abortion is not illegal according to current law and can not therefore be stopped I personally find gender-specific abortion especially despicable.First check out the gender of the foetus, the future 'mother' (I do not call this monster to be a mother!) expects a girl, and it is a girl, that's OK. And if it is a boy, it's for abortion.Even medical doctors in Sweden were expressing concern, as they feel pressured to examine the foetus’s gender without having a medically compelling reason to do so, according to this article.In Sweden legal, up to 18 weeks and the health insurance pays. – What a shame – that's feminism at its finest.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Actually Yohan, a pregnancy can kill a woman. So it can be considered an ailment.

jupiter9
9 years ago

>"But the intrinsic value of an intact living human being vastly exceeds a that of unliving flesh that — in itself — is not now, nor ever was, an intact human being. The intrinsic value of human life is not nullified simply because a particular child is callously not wanted by its mother."How far can we take this?If you rape a woman and get her pregnant, then that pregnancy could result in a miraculous, wonderful baby and human being! Not only do you have a responsibility to stop women who were raped from getting abortions. You have a moral duty to impregnate as many women as possible, regardless of their desire to be pregnant or be a mother.Yohan: "It's a big difference between an UNWANTED pregnancy done out of consensual sex resulting of missing contraceptives and condomes – or a pregnancy due to FORCED sexual contact against the will of the woman (violent rape)."They're both people though! No abortion can be allowed, all women who get abortions should be charged with murder! It doesn't matter how she got pregnant. Right?

Yohan
9 years ago

> …. No abortion can be allowed, all women who get abortions should be charged with murder! It doesn't matter how she got pregnant. Right? No, this is not my opinion, if you read back.I said several times in this thread, as an MRA from Europe living in Japan, I consider abortion, 12-to-14-weeks (3-months)/the pregnant woman decides/no questionsas it is done in many EU-countries (Germany, Austria, Italy, France and also in some Asian countries etc.) as the best solution. I consider it to be somewhere in the middle between pro-life and pro-choice and the best solution I have seen so far. Nowadays abortion is not a big issue in most parts of EU and Japan, Singapore etc…How far can we take this?If you rape a woman and get her pregnant, then that pregnancy could result in a miraculous, wonderful baby and human being! It matters a lot for many married MRAs (like myself), how their wives got pregnant and who is the father. Why should I support a child – in case of rape but also paternity fraud – despite I am not the biological father?You should understand that not all MRAs are from USA and/or are not always religious motivated like Muslims or Catholics.Among MRAs the opinion about abortion is divided, and not only among MRAs.I doubt if all feminists agree to gender-specific abortion (girls OK, boys away) or to abortion a few weeks before birth, because a woman is suddenly getting psycho because she regrets her one-night-stand 7 or 8 months ago.

Yohan
9 years ago

>Elizabeth said… Actually Yohan, a pregnancy can kill a woman. So it can be considered an ailment. A pregnancy/birth is a natural condition for a woman serving reproduction of humans and is not an ailment.Medical checkups are recommended of course to monitor pregnancy and to discover any problem as soon as possible.I do not know about any country, any government, any social framework in this world, where pregnancy is considered to be an illness beginning with the first day of conception.Conception = sexually transmitted infection?Women are waiting frequently for sperm from donors, does that mean they PAY to be infected with a sexually transmitted deadly disease?Feminists are even attacking MRAs are cruel, as we are strongly against sperm-donorship out of many reasons.

chocomintlipwax
9 years ago

>I have never in my life heard of anyone aborting male fetuses for being male. Girls, yes. That's illegal in both China and India, and yet remains very common in both countries. Now they have way more men than women, and in China it's not unheard of to round up women in the countryside to kidnap them and take them somewhere to marry off to men elsewhere. But Jin-Yohan is worried about the undocumented and imaginary genocide of male fetuses in Sweden. On one hand we have a real crisis as the result of abortions based on fetal sex … on the other hand we have one imagined in Jin-Yohan's head. But no, let's not concern ourselves with the REAL and FEMALE fetuses getting aborted because of their sex. Let's concern ourselves with the imaginary male ones.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@jupiter9:"How far can we take this?If you rape a woman and get her pregnant, then that pregnancy could result in a miraculous, wonderful baby and human being!Not only do you have a responsibility to stop women who were raped from getting abortions. You have a moral duty to impregnate as many women as possible, regardless of their desire to be pregnant or be a mother."I'm grateful to have an opponent as shrill as you are. It illustrates to the world just how utterly reasonable it is that abortion is a heinous and violent act that should be done away with in almost all cases. Keep on helping me.

Yohan
9 years ago

> chocomintlipwax said… I have never in my life heard of anyone aborting male fetuses for being male. Girls, yes. That's illegal in both China and India, and yet remains very common in both countries. Abortion is legal in China and India regardless if the foetus is male or female – so what is your problem?You should be very happy about the legal situation regarding abortion in India and China, much better than in USA.Feminists consider a human foetus as tumor, as an internal ailment.And you are concerned about abortions in China?Why?Now they have way more men than women…in China… Is this a problem for feminists? I am not sure how to understand this comment.For mainland China the last estimate of 2010 shows 686 million males and 649 million females, this is about 5.4 percent or 37 million women missing out of the entire population.Still, presently are more women in China living than the entire population (males and females together) of USA, Japan, Philippines and Vietnam together…Don't be worried when listening to Fox News. All people living in Asia know, the Chinese will not die out soon. They even give money to make it possible for the Americans to pay the interests for their loans to manage their ballooning budget deficit.

Yohan
9 years ago

>chocomintlipwax said… on the other hand we have one imagined in Jin-Yohan's head… Jin-Yohan – indeed, this is the first time I am called on in Arabic.In Arabian culture a 'JIN' is not necessarily bad, but might be bad, good, neutral and even benevolent in a certain situation when facing humans.

jupiter9
9 years ago

>John Dias, so do you agree that abortion is wrong in all cases? If so, then you own the "shrillness."Feminists simply want to have the choice to do with their bodies what they want. They generally do not define a zygote as a person. Out of that comes the pro-choice position that they don't have to follow anyone else's guidelines on whether they are allowed to have an abortion, at least before viability.Not only does prop 3 say "I won't pay for your abortion." It says, "you can't put your money in a health savings account and use it for an abortion." It says, "you can't select insurance coverage that includes abortion."Birth control fails. Circumstances change. You're basically saying that you cannot trust women to make their own decisions about their own bodies. That's absurd.

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

>Feminists consider a human foetus as tumor, as an internal ailment.This brings to my mind an exchange between RomanCandle and jupiter9 in this thread:RomanCandle >> "I doubt Roissy tortures cats, either. It's called hyperbole, and it's Roissy's bread and butter."jupiter9 >> "When feminists use hyperbole it's taken dead serious. How interesting when the tables are turned."So when men use hyperbole in hopes of better illustrating a point, it's stupid for it not to be understood as such. But if feminists use hyperbole in hopes of better illustrating a point…

jupiter9
9 years ago

>Pam: "So when men use hyperbole in hopes of better illustrating a point, it's stupid for it not to be understood as such. But if feminists use hyperbole in hopes of better illustrating a point…"

jupiter9
9 years ago

>Pam: "So when men use hyperbole in hopes of better illustrating a point, it's stupid for it not to be understood as such. But if feminists use hyperbole in hopes of better illustrating a point…" /golf clap

Yohan
9 years ago

>It seems, jupiter9 and Pam are now running out of arguments, they complain about hyperboles…On one side, feminists are demanding abortion a few days before the tumor is ready for birth, and on the other side feminists are lining up begging men for sperm-donations to carry out artificial insemination.This is the macabre, cruel and strange world of feminism.

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

>Who's complaining about hyperboles? I'm not, and it doesn't look like jupiter9 is, either. Just pointing out the fact that men don't corner the market on their usage when trying to illustrate a point.So some feminists don't want to give birth or have children and some do. I'm willing to bet that there are some non-feminists who want to have children and some who don't. That's macabre, cruel and strange?What I find macabre, cruel and strange is that the (mainly) Republicans who don't want abortions funded out of their tax dollars (nor, for that matter, do they want their tax dollars spent on social programs, including support for children who were not aborted) don't seem to mind a huge chunk of their tax dollars feeding the war machine of American Imperialism. Goodness knows that children, including those not yet born, aren't slain due to war.

atuinsails
9 years ago

>@YohanSorry, but I wanted to pick at something Yohan said earlier in the comments that has been bothering me."Can you imagine, you are married, with wife and children, and some gangsters are attacking your wife and she gets pregnant because of that?How can this family be forced to accept this child among their other children? How can you be a father for this unwanted child?" I just have one question to ask, which I think is a very important one where a woman's choice is concerned.Mr. Yohan, in a hypothetical situation where the wife a MRA activist was raped and became pregnant, would you expect that woman to have an abortion at the request of her husband, even if she didn't want to?

Yohan
9 years ago

>@atuinsailsVery reasonable question.As I said in my earlier postings in this thread, opinions about abortion are divided. It's not only about pro-life-MRAs and pro-choice-feminists.I can only speak for myself and family, we are from EU/Japan, nobody of us has a deep religious background, nobody is into USA-politics.In many EU-countries and some Asian countries the woman decides alone within 12 to 14 weeks after obligatory counselling and 3 days to reconsider her decision of requesting an abortion – and most people in Europe think, that's a good solution somewhere in the middle for all of us.The next choice for the wife is directly after birth, the woman can decide if she prefers adoption or not. If she decides for adoption, the child will be taken away immediately after birth, she will not even see it for one moment.About my own family members I know they will not wait, but go ahead with chemical abortion and other medical treatment immediately after the rape-crime to prevent pregnancy and STD-related infections.In case of rape our family will be more worried about STDs than about pregnancy/abortion.

jupiter9
9 years ago

>"About my own family members I know they will not wait, but go ahead with chemical abortion and other medical treatment immediately after the rape-crime to prevent pregnancy and STD-related infections."Even if the rapist is a family member or trusted friend? Even if it's date rape? Even if it's statutory rape?

Yohan
9 years ago

>@jupiter9Why not?Yes, in any case of unwanted sexual contact all of my family members will look immediately for medical advice to prevent STD-related infections. That's for sure.About pregnancies in general, my 2 daughters and their husbands are not interested into pregnancy/own children anyway and my wife is too old for that.We have a family life and there are no secrets between us, we all know each other, health insurances will pay the most part of these medical fees anyway…Everybody of us has enough money to look up a private medical clinic, if they really want to keep something done in secret.There are plenty of ladies' clinics in all major Japanese cities with medical doctors, correcting everything which is outside of the Japanese health insurance cover, your nose, your ears, your X-feet, your teeth, skin problems and are also ready for abortion.—–About abortion as I said, that's not a big issue in Japan/China and in many EU-countries for MRAs like me who are not concerned about religion and are not living in USA. – The woman pays for it and it will be done, and how can I know if a woman is 3 months pregnant or not? About children in general, there are MILLIONS of poor children around in neighbouring countries near Japan, any age, any gender, any health condition – your choice if you like children and do not want to have your own ones, the question is only for how many children you want to take care.

jupiter9
9 years ago

>Yohan, many do not think as you do. Many think "date rape" is impossible for example, and only the stranger assaulting you from the bushes at night with a gun is really rape.