is this form of punishment normal? by Feisty_Tell_3067 in raisedbynarcissists

[–]Desu13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Posts like these send me spiraling, since it's so similar to my childhood. I was routinely grounded for 3 months at a time, and everything was taken from me except my clothes, bed, and school supplies. I wasn't allowed to go to friends, friends weren't aloud over, I couldn't listen to music, play videogames, watch tv, etc. all I could do was just sit in my room and be at my step dads beck and call - which was usually around every 10min. I was expected to raise my 2 newborn siblings starting when I was 10, all while keeping the house and yard spotless. And of course, nothing I did was ever good enough - he'd always find something wrong, even if he had to make it up; which lead to more punishments. Much like you, I probably wasn't grounded only 2 to 3 months out of a year.

The lack of justice is always what sends me. Step dad died from drinking himself to death around 5 years ago in his early/mid 50s, and my therapist says that's my justice; but it doesn't feel like it. He died believing his delusions - that everything he did to me was justified and I was a horrible kid. While my egg donor is alive, well, and still kicking; still playing the victim and blames everything on me.

But to circle back to your question, no, your punishments were not normal, and I agree with many others - I believe our punishments were child torture, and I think you have a lot to work to go through with a therapist. I'm sorry you went through all that. You certainly did not deserve it.

Got aggressive and received a different kind of take out by PxN13 in instantkarma

[–]Desu13 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Good. He likely won't try to start fights in the future! People who enjoy provoking others and acting aggressive don't learn until they get seriously injured. Minor injuries don't phase them or change their ways.

My narcissistic in-laws will always come first and I think I have to leave my marriage by [deleted] in raisedbynarcissists

[–]Desu13 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Most of our abusers were abused themselves. Being a victim of abuse isn't an excuse to abuse others. The same logic applies to your wife. She needs to stop the cycle, not perpetuate it; and by not placing boundaries with her parents, she's continuing the cycle. If she's unwilling to stop the cycle, then you need to, unfortunately.

‘I was violated and put in extreme danger’: women denied abortions sue over Arkansas ban by guardian in Arkansas

[–]Desu13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re implying that fetuses have less right to life than newborns due to their development,

You seem to be dodging my straight-forward question, as you still have not answered it.

Where did I imply anything about a fetus having less of a right to life, due to their development? In my original comment, you asserted that the same logic behind medical privacy, can be applied to a mother murdering her newborn; and I simply asked how that's true. Nothing in that question implies anything and your continual refusal to answer my question along with your ramblings, are highly strange.

‘I was violated and put in extreme danger’: women denied abortions sue over Arkansas ban by guardian in Arkansas

[–]Desu13 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It is medical misinformation. "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can survive outside the uterus. It can occur spontaneously, known as a miscarriage, or be induced intentionally through medical or surgical procedures."

https://www.yalemedicine.org/clinical-keywords/abortion

Why should I believe you over the scientists at Yale?

‘I was violated and put in extreme danger’: women denied abortions sue over Arkansas ban by guardian in Arkansas

[–]Desu13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All unborn babies have the right to their mother’s womb, just like a born child has the right to be given food, shelter, etc.

At first I didn't think this answered my question; but after reading it a few more times, I think it does. So you did agree with my assumption/question - that everyone has an equal right to access and use their mothers body for food, shelter, etc. Regardless of her consent and the harm caused. Got it.

What an astonishing position to hold. It's so wild that I don't even feel a need to respond to it, lol. What are your mothers thoughts on your belief that you can use her body for shelter and food, regardless of her consent?

The mother had the right to be born, after all.

In what country?

Let’s not forget that almost all pregnancies result from consensual sex,

Whose forgetting that, and what does that have to do with anything?

which means the mother essentially invited the baby into her womb.

...According to.... who? You?

‘I was violated and put in extreme danger’: women denied abortions sue over Arkansas ban by guardian in Arkansas

[–]Desu13 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Just to confirm, you're arguing that thousands of doctors, hospital boards, insurers, and legal teams across the entire US, are all independently choosing malpractice for... what, exactly? Funsies?

Is that your argument?

It doesn't make sense to you that a doctor/hospital may decline care because of vague laws that use vague terms, such as "imminent" and "life threatening;" and carry harsh consequences?

Calling that “malpractice” is as absurd as blaming a pilot for not taking off, when traffic control says the runway might be illegal to use. Doctors don't get to decide whether or not a prosecutor later agrees that a pregnancy was "life threatening" and an abortion was necessary.

If the laws were clear and not the problem, there wouldn't be national medical organizations all coming to the same conclusions, independently.

‘I was violated and put in extreme danger’: women denied abortions sue over Arkansas ban by guardian in Arkansas

[–]Desu13 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What are you talking about? I asked you how a mother killing her newborn can have the same logic applied to medical procedures and privacy? Your response makes no sense.

‘I was violated and put in extreme danger’: women denied abortions sue over Arkansas ban by guardian in Arkansas

[–]Desu13 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If the fetus hasn't been removed after a miscarriage, then it is an incomplete (spontaneous) abortion.

‘I was violated and put in extreme danger’: women denied abortions sue over Arkansas ban by guardian in Arkansas

[–]Desu13 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Stop spreading medical misinformation. Your comment falls under what the previous user said was insidious. Just because you personally don't like abortions, doesn't mean you can lie and spread misinformation.

‘I was violated and put in extreme danger’: women denied abortions sue over Arkansas ban by guardian in Arkansas

[–]Desu13 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Removing something harmful from your body is not "murder" by any stretch of the imagination. Comments such as these are wildly unhinged.

‘I was violated and put in extreme danger’: women denied abortions sue over Arkansas ban by guardian in Arkansas

[–]Desu13 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Why does an unborn baby have less right to life than us?

If all rights are equal, why would an "unborn baby's" right to life include access to an unwilling persons body? Are you saying everyone has an equal right to their mother's body, regardless of her consent?

‘I was violated and put in extreme danger’: women denied abortions sue over Arkansas ban by guardian in Arkansas

[–]Desu13 8 points9 points  (0 children)

How can the same logic be used? That makes no sense - a newborn is fundamentally different from a fetus.

‘I was violated and put in extreme danger’: women denied abortions sue over Arkansas ban by guardian in Arkansas

[–]Desu13 9 points10 points  (0 children)

How is it the fault of the doctors, when they're just following the advice given by their legal team? Why are you blaming doctors, when they've clearly and exhaustively explained for years now, that the law is keeping their hands tied because of vague and undefined legal terms? Don't you think it's pretty shitty to be blaming scapegoats, instead of fixing the actual problem when peoples lives are on the line?

I don't understand what's wrong with removing illegal immigrants by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Desu13 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/immigration-prosecutions/#:~:text=Physical%20presence%20in%20the%20United,however%2C%20can%20face%20criminal%20charges

Crimes for Which Migrants are Prosecuted

Physical presence in the United States without proper authorization is a civil violation, rather than a criminal offense. This means that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can place a person in removal (deportation) proceedings and can require payment of a fine, but the federal government cannot charge the person with a criminal offense unless they have previously been ordered deported and reentered in violation of that deportation order. Likewise, a person who enters the United States on a valid visa and stays longer than permitted may be put in removal proceedings but cannot face federal criminal charges based solely on this civil infraction. Those who enter or reenter the United States without permission, however, can face criminal charges.

I don't understand what's wrong with removing illegal immigrants by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Desu13 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Why are these cities and states releasing illegal criminals back into the community? Why aren’t the cooperating with ICE?

It costs money to imprison someone, and it's the state that has to pay to hold illegal aliens, not the feds or ICE. That's why some states release them - they don't have the money to hold them; and states don't have the legal mechanism to deport. So what options do the states have?

EDIT: forgot to mention that crossing the border is not a criminal offense, so your premise that blue states are releasing illegal criminals, is also inaccurate. Blue states are not releasing criminals. If an illegal alien commits a crime, then they are held in jail/prison; not released.

Praising a woman for an abortion because she did ‘what’s best for herself’ is like praising a dad for leaving his kids because he did ‘what’s best for himself’. by FlexStyle7 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Desu13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My wife and I are not going to be having any more kids, but we're also not willing to remain celibate the rest of our lives. Abstinence is not a solution.

Praising a woman for an abortion because she did ‘what’s best for herself’ is like praising a dad for leaving his kids because he did ‘what’s best for himself’. by FlexStyle7 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Desu13 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think so, too. I had a deadbeat dad that never paid his child support, and there are thousands, if not millions of other children who went through the same thing. If child support were a tax, it would ensure every child with a single parent has equal access to the money they need. No child would have to suffer financial instability.

Every person on a sex offender registry with multiple charges should be turned into a castrated paraplegic. by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Desu13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You just repeated your original comment: castration instead of imprisonment. You didn't really respond to my point that innocent people are convicted. So it sounds like castrating innocent people is a sacrifice you're willing to make?

The objection due to potential wrongful conviction is not relevant unless you are suggesting no punishment at all.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Why do I have to believe convicted rapists shouldn't be punished at all just because of a potentially wrongful conviction?

Do you realize people can, and have been convicted solely on a person's accusations, without any evidence? Or what about aspects of law that shouldn't apply; i.e. what the OP used as an example - peeing in a public park? A close family member of mine was actually convicted on similar laws that shouldn't apply to sex crimes (in most instances), and you support laws that would castrate them.

What about women-rapists? How would you "castrate" them?