Boycott/ Divest and Pull your College App from All States which violate Our Daughters' Civil Rights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.

[Anonymous]

Countries with highest rate of rapes. US is not even close to the top.

https://www.tbsnews.net/world/countries-highest-rape-incidents-144499?amp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.

Actually any given black man is more likely to rape you than any given white man. This type of statistical application is pretty misleading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.

In Switzerland you’d be most likely to raped by a white man. In Japan an Asian man. In Nicaragua a Latino man. Etc al.

I don’t know what your point is, but I’m sure you think you’re making one.

[Anonymous]

I should send my smart, talented, giving, ivf conceived daughter off to college in some backwards red state where if the catholics had their way, she would never have walked this earth?

No. Nope. Never. Forget it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I should send my smart, talented, giving, ivf conceived daughter off to college in some backwards red state where if the catholics had their way, she would never have walked this earth?

No. Nope. Never. Forget it.

For that matter, she could have been aborted by some women in a blue state. I'm very happy for both of you that she was wanted and loved

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

Thanks! Now tell us what percent of the population in the US is comprised by white men?

30%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should send my smart, talented, giving, ivf conceived daughter off to college in some backwards red state where if the catholics had their way, she would never have walked this earth?

No. Nope. Never. Forget it.

For that matter, she could have been aborted by some women in a blue state. I'm very happy for both of you that she was wanted and loved

Wrong. The point is... The church needs to keep its business out of our laws and out of our daughter's reproductive decisions unless they seek such guidance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should send my smart, talented, giving, ivf conceived daughter off to college in some backwards red state where if the catholics had their way, she would never have walked this earth?

No. Nope. Never. Forget it.

For that matter, she could have been aborted by some women in a blue state. I'm very happy for both of you that she was wanted and loved

Do you think there is a lottery in heaven where babies are randomly assigned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares about the economy, or 2+ million illegals a year, or inflation or record high debt, or spiking crime everywhere, when we can go nuts about late term abortions?!?

First of all, thanks for openly telling us you are a racist so we don’t need to waste our time. Second, inflation is a global issue, much of it tied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Crime is NOT up, but you’re right that gun violence, the most devastating and deadly problem in our country needs to be immediately addressed. SCOTUS’ recent ruling about concealed carry was clearly antithetical to living in a free and safe society and needs to be overturned. We need strong gun control. However, I don’t care about a single issue more than I care about women’s bodily autonomy and the women who will suffer and die preventable deaths when they’re denied medical care. Again, overturning Roe means overturning the right to ANY abortion. Roe and Casey did not guarantee the right to late term abortions.

DP Why would you accuse the PP of being a racist? And crime is way up year on year. If you want to be taken at all seriously try not to be such an imbecile.

Crime is NOT up year on year, except gun related crime. Guns are now the leading cause of death for children, surpassing auto incidents. You would think this would be disturbing to a party so insistent that they care about children and life.
And they are obvious racists because they used the slur “illegals” to dehumanize people from other countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should send my smart, talented, giving, ivf conceived daughter off to college in some backwards red state where if the catholics had their way, she would never have walked this earth?

No. Nope. Never. Forget it.

For that matter, she could have been aborted by some women in a blue state. I'm very happy for both of you that she was wanted and loved

Wrong. The point is... The church needs to keep its business out of our laws and out of our daughter's reproductive decisions unless they seek such guidance.

There is nothing incorrect about the statement you referenced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should send my smart, talented, giving, ivf conceived daughter off to college in some backwards red state where if the catholics had their way, she would never have walked this earth?

No. Nope. Never. Forget it.

For that matter, she could have been aborted by some women in a blue state. I'm very happy for both of you that she was wanted and loved

Do you think there is a lottery in heaven where babies are randomly assigned

You're the one who mentioned a lottery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I should send my smart, talented, giving, ivf conceived daughter off to college in some backwards red state where if the catholics had their way, she would never have walked this earth?

No. Nope. Never. Forget it.

For that matter, she could have been aborted by some women in a blue state. I'm very happy for both of you that she was wanted and loved

Wrong. The point is... The church needs to keep its business out of our laws and out of our daughter's reproductive decisions unless they seek such guidance.

There is nothing incorrect about the statement you referenced.

Ok sure. And your child could have been brought here by a stork.

[Anonymous]

It's very simple: to decrease the number of Abortions in America- massively increase Sex Ed in schools and make birth control cheap and readily available

To decrease the mass killing of children at their desks in school and on their bikes or in their parent's arms @ 4th of July Parade: Ban Assault rifles and Red Law ALL hand gun purchases

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.

I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.

This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.

But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.

No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.

I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.

Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.

No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?

Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.

Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.

The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.

A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.

So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.

You are a seriously disturbed individual.

And you are an advocate of child rape and on the side of child rapists. You are incredibly disgusting.

??? NP, did not follow that at all. Maybe you have a thought process, but… If anything abortion is used to cover up the crimes of child sex offenders.

Child rapists usually want to force their victims to carry the pregnancies to term. It’s because they are trying to exert power over their victims. It’s known in criminal justice circles. Therefore, the forced birthers who want raped ten-year-olds to carry to term are siding with child rapists.

Of course we have seen how many GOP politicians actually are child rapists (Roy Moore, etc.) so it tracks that forced birthers side with child rapists.

Do you really want to discuss who commits rape?

Dp- men

In the US, white men commit the most rapes.

Is that a fact? Please provide a source.

RAINN generates stats about sexual violence among other services. Go look at the stats. 57 percent of perpetrators are white.

+1

Who is most likely to rape me? White man.

Actually any given black man is more likely to rape you than any given white man. This type of statistical application is pretty misleading.

Nope. 72% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance or current/former partner.

White men do the most raping. Mostly to women/children they know.