Should female rapists be allowed to terminate the children of men they rape, in situations where the man wants to keep and raise his child?
What do you think, OP?
Can you cite any cases of this actually happening?
I think the woman should be held in custody in a way that makes it impossible for her to perform the abortion herself until the child is born. This, of course, following a court order after it’s been proven that the female is guilty.
No. That doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened, and that doesn’t mean that it will not happen.
Have you ever heard of a female wanting to have the child of an unwilling man? If she’s crazy enough to do so, she may rape him. That has happened many times. What if she changes her mind after the fact?
My likely unpopular opinion is that while people have rights, these rights can be categorically rescinded in the case when somebody breaks the social contract, and it often makes sense that the way those rights are rescinded is related to the crime. Now obviously, we draw some lines, cutting off someone’s hand for theft is “related to the crime”, but I’d argue it’s a bit of a cruel punishment for theft. I believe that in the case of pregnancy due to female on male rape, the victim should have complete control over the result of the rape. That means opting for an abortion on her behalf (except in cases where it’s impossible or far too dangerous due to outstanding medical conditions), adoption, keeping the child, child support responsibility, and so on.
I know a lot of people will disagree with the abortion clause in the above sentence on the ground that it’s “her body”, and counter with the very “cut off a hand for stealing” or even perhaps bringing up that I don’t agree with the death penalty for murder. (Though I don’t think I’ll get many vehement disagreements on the adoption/keep/etc part). Maybe I am inconsistent, I don’t know, but I really feel that despite any right to one’s own body, the potential to be required to abort on your own dime is a fair and ethical price to pay for breaching that particular law.
ETA: This is all assuming the woman is convicted, of course. Nothing should be forced on a mere charge.
I do not believe this is nearly as pressing a problem as men raping women. I am sure some men get raped by women, but I doubt if it’s a huge number. As was said before, “Cite?”
I seem to recall a female teacher getting pregnant by a minor student?
That was statutory rape, but the same idea.
The problem is that the law is slow and the window of opportunity for an abortion is short.
This is all simply a deflection. Whether or not it’s likely or has been an issue doesn’t mean it’s not worth thinking about. Sure, if lawmakers decided to make this a huge issue ignoring more pressing rape issues then it might be eyebrow raising, but this is a thread on a message board. We’ve had such a large number of rape threads what does it matter if one or two are about hypothetical female on male rape? Do all threads about an issue have to deal with the most likely possibilities? I don’t see the damage. It’s certainly not any sillier than arguing about planes on treadmills. Maybe I’d agree with you guys if this was literally physically impossible, but there’s no a priori reason a woman couldn’t rape a man and get pregnant. I don’t see the harm in discussing such a what-if scenario.
Also,
Is a good point. It’s not super duper common, but stories about woman on man statutory rape have appeared in the news.
This is also a good point. File my opinion under “hypothetical” territory, obviously if the legal proceedings are too slow then there’s not much we can do.
Of course it’s not. That doesn’t matter. This is just a debate.
As was said before, I have nothing to cite.
More than one. And then in some cases successfully suing the underage boy for child support.
Women should be able to decide what happens to their own bodies, they are not brood cows. It’s as simple as that. Whether or not some circumstances may present ethical or moral questions about the impact of a woman’s decision has little bearing on the matter.
It’s really not “as simple as that”. I haven’t made such a ludicrous claim, and I’d appreciate it if you’d do the same. Please realize that this is a complicated issue and the answer isn’t as obvious as you might think.
Also, realize that there’s another body involved here… the body of the man’s son. And tied to that body is (possibly) the psychological integrity of the man (who, let’s not forget, was victimized by the rapist). You’re saying the man should be fucked by the justice system because the woman should be able to do whatever makes her feel comfortable. I agree with Jragon; I think she forfeited that right when she raped a guy and used his stolen sperm to create a child.
I think the argument could be made that in the case of a proven rape, the mother should be forfeit to any kind of child support and the father could get some kind of restraining order against the child. But I’m not very smart so I could easily see myself getting eviscerated here. I’ll just stand back now.
EDIT: To be clear, I’m presenting better solutions than forcing an abortion.
I support abortions (and non-abortions) for anyone who wants one. As long as the fetus is inside an adult, it needs that adults ongoing permission to remain there. I know that the fetus is also a rapists child, and a rape victim’s child - to me that has nothing to do with forcing someone to provide life support to it (by preventing an abortion) or forcing someone to go through a medical procedure (by forcing an abortion). Only the prenant person gets to make that call.
You brought up something about the male rape victim being “fucked by the justice system” and I’m not sure how that applies to abortion. Unless you’re talking about rape conviction rates and the unlikelihood of him seeing his rapist brought to justice? Or are you talking about child support? I suppose I would be open to debate those aspects if that’s where you’re going, but if the topic is solely about abortion - whoever’s body it is gets to say yes or no to medical interventions on it. I don’t believe anyone else gets to force or prevent an abortion on someone else
If the rape victim wants to keep and raise *his *son/daughter, but must stand by while his rapist has it cut in half, yeah. He’s getting fucked pretty hard.
This may not be the dumbest OP I’ve read on this cite, but it’s close to it.
The Constitution guarantees that women have the right to abortions regardless of whether or not this pisses off socially awkward men who’ve had a difficult time getting women to sleep with them.
Beyond that, I’ve yet to find any evidence that women raping men is a phenomenon at all.
I’ve met plenty of men who’ve been raped, all of whom were severely traumatized, one of whom eventually committed suicide and all of whom were raped by other men.
Frankly, in my experience, the men who rage about men getting g raped by women are, without a single exception, sexually frustrated heterosexual men who can’t get dates.
Obviously, I don’t think this is true of any of the people who’ve posted in this thread. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t support using peoples’ reproductive systems or the medical system as punishment. I don’t think women (period) should be put in that position, and I don’t think doctors should be put in the position of needing to physically punish women in order to retain their positions providing care to an already under-served community. I understand the idea that criminals can lose rights, and I guess if you put a gun to my head and made me pick a class of people to force to give birth, this would be it, but otherwise I’m fine with just not doing it.
Feel free to give us some more anti-choice porn about little babies being “cut in half,” though. :rolleyes:
But that is not the justice system doing that, it’s the rapist. You’re asking the system to intervene to prevent an otherwise legal medical intervention. Now I agree that the situation adds insult to injury, but the alternative is not only judicially and politically impractical, but also morally questionable as well. The former reason is the most important part.
How exactly are you gonna prevent this hypothetical rapist from getting an abortion? Or even just “accidentally” falling down the steps. How are you gonna get an injunction in enough time, or even prove she got an abortion?
We already have enough laws we can’t enforce. Why add one more that addresses a scenario that would almost never happen.
Are you aware that at one point the Constitution outlawed the sale of alcoholic beverages? The original Constitution and its amendments aren’t perfect. Sometimes the people who wrote them failed to foresee certain circumstances like this one. Sometimes they were just wrong. And sometimes, for these reasons, segments of the Constitution are modified.
And yeah. People who might be angered by situations like this are “socially awkward men who’ve had a difficult time getting women to sleep with them”. You got me there.