I covered this above. If she’s already been convicted, the baby could easily be protected. The woman can be restrained.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. Now I get where you’re coming from.
Yes, it’s very sad for anyone to not be able to keep and raise a wanted child. I can imagine how devastating it would be for a man to desperately want his child, only to be told that the woman was aborting it. In keeping with your hypothetical, I theoretically presume it would be an even further horror for the rape victim to find out that not only were they violated by the rape, but also that the child they wanted would be destroyed. Yes, it would be horrific, I imagine.
I don’t know what the justice system has to do with it though? Why don’t you tell us what you think should happen.
On a theoretical level, I’m thinking:
(a) woman rapes man
- she is found guilty
or - she is found not guilty
or - the court case will not commence (due to scheduling) for 6 months, so an abortion will or won’t happen before guilt is determined
What do you think should happen in each of the above cases if the woman wants an abortion and the man wants the child born? What do you think should happen in each of those cases if the woman wants the child born and the man doesn’t? How would you enforce this?
_ sorry I took too long to post my other questions and I see you’ve already partly answered anyway_
OK, so I guess you’re saying that in the event a woman is found guilty of raping a man, and is incarcerated for the rape, and the man wants the child, she should not be provided with an abortion by the prison medical staff?
I guess I could kind of see that on a theoretical level. In practice, I doubt you will ever get the set of circumstances to arise, given how long court cases take. I’m pretty sure there’s a very good chance the woman will be able to get an abortion before she gets to the point of serving her jail term for rape. But I guess, it is vanishingly possible that it might happen.
Out of interest, in your scenario does the baby stay with her in prison for breastfeeding, or does it get taken at the moment of birth and handed to the rape victim father?
Punishment? This isn’t about punishment. This is about the father and his child. The woman’s incarceration is the punishment; carrying the baby might be unpleasant for the rapist, but that’s only a side-effect. If the guy does this only to “punish” the woman and doesn’t actually care about the child, well, that’s a pretty shitty thing to do… but how many men do you think would actually go through that kind of trouble at that point?
I’m pretty sure the fetus is pulverized first and then vacuumed out. Regardless of your position on abortion-related matters, it doesn’t hurt to know the details. Sorry I made it a little harder for you to ignore them. :rolleyes:
Tough shit. The Constitution guarantees a woman’s right to privacy.
If she wants to have an abortion and not be forced to undergo months of pregnancy and endure giving birth, which has to be about the most painful experience a human can go through, she has that right.
Men have tried for millennia to control women, but this isn’t the Middle Ages and the misogynists have been passed by.
Thank you for readily admitting that the men who lie to squeal about men being raped by women are usually men who have a diificult time getting laid and who are projecting.
It’s appreciated.
Men getting raped by other men is a serious problem, but anyone who thinks that a significant number of men are raped by women is a sexist, an idiot, or both.
In your first scenario, if the man so desires, the women carries the child to term, whether she wants to or not. If the woman wants to keep the child, I don’t believe the man should have the right to demand an abortion. The woman can raise the child and the man can file restraining orders if he wants.
In your second scenario, everybody goes home. If she truly did rape him, then the justice system failed the guy.
In your third scenario, the extremely time-sensitive nature of the case should increase its priority. I don’t know the exact inner workings of this aspect of the justice system, but I’m sure it’s possible.
Hopefully the case could be rescheduled and placed under a deadline, as I mentioned above.
Forcing the woman to care for the child *after *it’s born is stretching it. It isn’t necessary; the child can survive without it, so I don’t think the man should be able to make such decisions at that point.
-
She *currently *has that right. Rights change. The Constitution changes.
-
You’re implying that I’m targeting women simply because they’re women. Sure, this matter directly pertains to the female sex, but that’s purely circumstantial. When making this thread, I didn’t think “Hm, how can I try to violate the rights of women today?”. Don’t be ridiculous.
-
“the men who lie to squeal about men being raped by women”? What is that supposed to mean? Men are raped by women. No lies here.
-
Wouldn’t you agree that any kind of rape is a problem? You’re saying that male on male rape is a serious problem but female on male rape is not simply because the latter happens less often.
Oh, and I forgot to mention: if the woman wants to abort and the man doesn’t care, the woman should be able to, according to current jurisdiction on the matter.
OK, so basically your OP is saying ‘No abortions for women in prison for rape if their victim wants the child and they didn’t manage to get an abortion before the end of the trial’, is that right?
Do you have a problem with a pregnant woman in jail for beating up her husband with a saucepan getting an abortion, if the husband wants the child? Just checking if it’s her guilt of a crime, or if it’s linked to the fact that it was a rape.
Also, what if the woman says that she’s pregnant by her boyfriend and was already 1 week pregnant before she raped this other guy. Can she get an abortion then? Or must she undergo genetic testing of the fetus first?
What if she aborts during the trial? Tough luck to the rape victim then? Should we just hold all women accused of rape, in case they try to take RU486 before the trial?
Seeking to punish a convicted female rapist who is resultantly pregnant by forcing a medically unnecessary procedure on her or reducing her to an involuntary biological incubator – is essentially reducing her to a brood mare. I am unaware of any other convicted criminal who faces that sort of “punishment”, or any victim who is granted that sort of restitution. We don’t mandate criminals to share their bodies or body parts (mandatory tissue/blood/organ donation) as restitution to their victims, even if their criminal act caused grave bodily harm resulting in the need for organ/tissue donation in order for their victim to survive.
Personhood is conferred at birth, not before. His stolen sperm created a zygote, it is the woman’s body that does 100% of the work that assembles that zygote into a baby nine months later. Parental rights and responsibilities are conferred at birth, not before. Fathers have no rights until birth and even then it can get complicated. (e.g. genetics alone do not necessarily confer fathers’ rights, unless they are married to the mother)
Also, the “man’s son”? Why do you assume that resulting pregnancy would automatically create a male zygote?
Male victims of rape should absolutely be absolved of child support and parental responsibilities (if they so desire), with access to all the victim support and protections available, but allowing them sovereignty over the body of their rapist? Um no, no victim has ever been granted that right or restitution of that magnitude.
-
If the intercourse between this woman and her husband was consensual, they both assumed the risk of a pregnancy. I won’t argue that the woman should not be able to obtain an abortion in this case.
-
If the police just said “Okay then, go ahead and have your abortion”, don’t you think that would be a glaring loophole in the policy? Any woman could just use that argument to have her abortion and be done with it. So yeah, genetic testing.
-
I know I failed to mention this earlier when I should have, but I don’t think the rights of the women should be forfeited in the period of time before the trial. She should be informed that an abortion before the trial would be unlawful and that she would be further penalized if convicted of the act. The guy is still losing his child, but the woman would be punished. Like when someone’s (already born) child is murdered, the killer is punished if convicted.
Restrained how? More importantly, you would almost never have a timeline in which you could adjudicate such a matter before the abortion window closes. Even if you could, what if she launches a successful appeal months latter? What happens when men start claiming they were raped to prevent their SO from getting an abortion (a situation FAR, FAR more likely to happen than your hypo)? And don’t act like plenty of idiots wouldn’t do that given we already have nut jobs that routinely kill and abuse women, in addition to those who murder abortion doctors. Your law would do more to empower male abusers than to prevent woman rapists from aborting their victims’ kids.
I think you should just be intellectually honest and argue against abortion in general rather than pretending this absurd hypothetical has any bearing on the issue. As if playing the, “won’t someone think of the poor male rape victim whose female attacker subsequently aborts their child” card is meaningful at all. Don’t we have enough real problems to deal with without having to invent ones to solve?
Personally, despite what I said above, I’d accept this as a reasonable compromise. Not ideal, but there’s a lot of difficulty involved in forcing an abortion/forcing pregnancy. Philisophically I maintain that rape, since it involves violating the bodily rights of another human, could reasonably have a punishment that involves the (focused, limited) violation of the criminal’s bodily rights – as it pertains directly to the rape. But people are correct that in practice it’s incredibly dodgy and prone to error.
I would be comfortable with the man not having to pay child support, or alternately automatically having the option of full custody. But he doesn’t and shouldn’t have any rights to violate the woman’s body as part of some quid pro quo. You might as well say that all rape victims should be allowed to rape their rapists.
-
Here we go with “punishing” again. This isn’t about punishment.
-
That is an opinion. I might say that personhood is conferred at conception, zygote implantation, or even the point at which life is sustainable outside of the womb. You would just continue to argue that personhood begins at birth, and then we’re getting into another enormous argument that probably wouldn’t ever go anywhere… so I’m not getting into it.
-
“it is the woman’s body that does 100% of the work that assembles that zygote into a baby nine months later”. Doesn’t the male body create twenty-three of the chromosomes required to construct the baby? How is the woman doing 100% of the work? Whatever. Even if she is, that doesn’t really affect my argument.
-
“son” is a mishap. I meant to say child.
-
“Fathers have no rights until birth and even then it can get complicated.” Isn’t that what this thread is about…?
-
Not sovereignty. What I’m suggesting is not sovereignty.
By the way, who do you think should have custody if both parents want the child and neither of them has any prior criminal record?
Is there some new genetic test that tests if a fetus is a rape baby? Unless we are narrowly focused on female rapists with a provable single encounter with a man that results in pregnancy, and is demonstrated in a court of law to be rape, you will almost never be able to prove when and how a child was conceived. Do you understand how hard that would be to prove in a court of law? Especially AFTER the child was aborted. That’s ignoring the fact that the woman can just get an abortion and say she miscarried, or just never admit to being pregnant in the first place.
Why? The act would only become retroactively illegal if she is convicted, right?
I’m kind of being overwhelmed here. It’s nearly 2 AM and for every post I reply to, more pop up in its place. I may be back tomorrow.
Anyway, thank you all for providing some thought-provoking arguments. I’ll continue contemplating the matter as I try to do with all of my opinions.
Even if it was a good idea (which I don’t think it is for reasons already expressed by others) there’s a practical problem. I’m assuming you’re not arguing that someone who has not been found guilty should be forced to continue the pregnancy, right?
Well, even assuming the crime was reported immediately, and the investigation proceeded at a reasonable pace, and the trial proceeded at a reasonable pace, it is very, very likely that more than 24 weeks will elapse between the crime and the verdict. Therefore, if a woman rapes a man, gets pregnant, and chooses to abort, the abortion will have taken place before the woman is proven guilty. Since we cannot reasonably prohibit an innocent woman from having an abortion, and the woman is innocent until proven guilty, any restriction of this nature would (almost) never actually come into play, because the deed would be done by the time she’s proven guilty.
I think this is a terrible idea. All you would do is open the door for more dead beat dads to claim their unwanted kids are rape babies. Additionally, child support is exactly what it sounds like, support for the child. Regardless of the circumstances of his/her birth, the child needs to be supported. I don’t get why the parent should be able to foist that responsibility to the state given that the child did nothing wrong. You are just victimizing the kid for the behavior of the mother. That’s not fair, nor is it practical. Yes, it might really suck for the dad, but sometimes life sucks. Doesn’t mean the government needs to pick up the bill for raising your kid.
That actually sounds like the sort of thing that would encourage murder. The young male victim would be punished far less by society if he just killed her.