My experiences are relevant to anyone who calls fatherhood punishment in some figurative manner. As a legal matter it is not punishment even if you want it to be. And in regard to the OP, as to whether a man is entitled to have a say over a woman’s body once it is impregnated by his sperm, it is still not a punishment. I’m not advocating as a part of the releveant argument that he should be required to pay for the child, or to care for the child. Fatherhood is the existence of a person conceived of a man’s sperm, and nothing it else, and it is not a punishment, and in no way should it be a consideration that limits a woman’s right to an abortion.
I don’t think for a second that a man who was raped against his will should have to pay child support. But women who do not believe in abortion are not. Choosing to have children
You poor soul…so angry that you can’t think straight, I have told you over and over that all rape is wrong. I never said a man passing out drunk is fraud. I was referring to a woman telling a man she has a condom, meantime she punctured it.
I had a few kids like you in my class who want to “get ya” rather than learn. Are you so dumb that you can’t figure out that I am on an iPad that corrects ? Are you so silly that you think I believe the word taught is spelled taaughtd? when you start resorting to spelling, it tells a lot about you. PS "to human children " is not a correct grammar.
Black and white thinkers are people who accuse someone of saying that raping men is wrong when that was never said. I never said that so try and grow up and knock it off. Sounds like you should be a commentator on FOX.
There is a difference between rape and consensual sex. If I’m man is raped by a woman he should absolutely not have to pay child support. But in consensual sex they both know the consequences, She will have to Undergo a pregnancy and 18 years of raising a child or she will have the consequence of a painful abortion. She knows this before she has sex. He will have to pay child support if a woman chooses to have the child. He knows that before he has sex… Final decision is only the woman’s…biology is destiny
Refusing to use a safe, legal method of terminating an unwanted pregnancy is clearly a choice.
That was just an example of how unconsenting people can be forced to have surgery. I’d argue that only superficially, its good for the patient, since if you’re on death row, it doesn’t matter. The state just wants to be able to kill you and not let you do it. I believe that with that exception made to unconsenting people, forced abortion in cases of rape is perfectly fine.
Yes. We know. I assure you, however, that your beliefs regarding the ethical and legal propriety of forcing prisoners to undergo pregnancy-termination procedures against their will are of astonishingly little interest to either legislators or medical professionals, both of whose cooperation you would require to enact your fun ideas into law.
If she refuses to use a safe legal form of birth control…then he says no! If he knows she isn’t, then that third party is both of theirs
I’m unconcerned about their interest or yours. I merely pointed out there are parallels to what we currently do with prisoners vs. what I think can be done with them. Its obvious that you simply expect me to just accept the reality of what is currently not done and end it, but this debate has more nuance than that and convincing arguments can be made for changing our existing practice. Your reply is exceedingly unhelpful in either direction so I hope you can take your own advice, acknowledge what I already believe, and accept that without comment as you seem to expect me to do.
Because we cut people up unwillingly already for dubious reasons, that is a clear foundation to base a new law whereby forced abortions can be made for female rapists. It does not stand out as immoral given what we already do, and there are examples where other forms of punishment that are worse is accepted with little question. The only reason why this is illegal and a big issue is the uniqueness of it, and that it crosses both conservative and liberal boundaries for different reasons.
Honestly, I think you just enjoy the idea of forced abortions. This is at least the third thread I’ve read in which you’ve advocated for performing them and your opinions certainly haven’t gotten any more rational or defensible since the first one.
Especially considering this thread was about forcing women to NOT have abortions.
“But, if we can tie them down and fuck with their genitals, how will women know we regard them as less than human?!”
From a strictly legal perspective, would the 8th amendment apply if the abortion were ordered as the result of a civil trial instead of a criminal one?
I’m sure I don’t see why it wouldn’t. Does that satisfy you, or will your next question be about whether it might be more legally acceptable to perform them in walled-off, soundproof rooms in your basement instead of a hospital?
Vitriolic and ludicrous basement comments notwithstanding, one reason that it might not is because the rules for civil courts are different than those for criminal courts. For example, the 5th amendment prohibits requiring someone to testify against them-self. This protection is not extended to civil trials. By the same token, a ruling by a civil court might not be seen as “punishment” and therefore the 8th amendment might not apply.
We live in a country that is systematically removing reproductive rights from women, including trying to force women who’ve become pregnant as a result of rape to carry those pregnancies to term. We live in a country where a significant number of states allow these rapist fathers to get visitation and fight for custody. That actually is happening.
And we’re arguing over whether we should perhaps change the constitution so in the impossible circumstances that would allow for a male victim of female rape to force an abortion (or force her to carry to term, depending on his whim), he can do so.
Does it matter why I like them? So what if maybe I use aborted fetuses in my immortality ritual, what do you care? :dubious:
Then again, often times, it just makes sense. Given the punishment inflicted on the men who are raped, I think forced abortion to remove that harm is perfectly moral. To me, its less bad than rape and forced fatherhood
Let’s not lose sight of the issue where we muddle one issue with another. I’m as pro-choice as they come, moreso than most in fact (I favor allowing abortions up until the umbilical cord is cut), but in this situation of rape, I think exceptions should be made. Looking carefully at an issue means not everything has an easy black and white solution where either you are or are not, black or white, up or down. I can be for choice but when disgusting things like rape occurs and is used to harm someone continuously, I’ll take a look at which one’s worse. I consider forced abortions to be less bad than rape and forced fatherhood, so sue me.
To me, it looks like with all of the pointing to the Constitution or state attacks on abortion or existing law, you are afraid that one much inevitably lead to the other, that if we allow an exception here, then why can’t religious people use that to allow exceptions elsewhere? I can’t speak for them, but to me, a huge pro-choice person, I’m not going to fight that hypothetical fight. Its easy for me to say that in this issue, I support the law being 100% pro-choice except in this one instance and never shall the law be abused to remove choice in other instances. And if your response is that it won’t happen, I’ll simply ask you to not fight the hypothetical
What is with your bizarre focus on forced abortions when it is so much more legally feasible and ethically acceptable to simply allow child support exemptions for victims of rape? I can only conclude that the rights of the father are not truly your primary concern, as that would be the logical thing to argue for if they were.
I really don’t think you understand what “pro-choice” means.
Now, hang on there. “Pro-choice” doesn’t, generally, mean all choices to all circumstances at all points in all pregnancies. Most pro-choice people do favor some limitations on abortion, by and large, particularly late term abortions for non-medical reasons. There are very few of us who advocate for a woman’s right to chose an elective intrauterine cranial decompression at 39 weeks with no signs of ill health in her or the fetus. While I’m not entirely sure I agree with his conclusions, I think that being anti-choice for <0.001% of situations - and a contrived hypothetical one at that - still earns him the title “pro-choice.”
Indeed. I think post-viability abortions should be banned, full stop; but I think there should be safe, legal, local abortions available before that. Does this make me “anti-choice”?
No, it makes you normal. Most people don’t see this in the polarized terms of the political factions.