The size of a problem wouldn’t justify offensive ad hominem arguments, even if it were the case that saying “you shouldn’t have a problem with x because y is worse” could ever be good reasoning.
What does matter? It’s a stupid analogy. A brood cow has no choice in getting knocked up, but right now we’re discussing a case where a woman goes out of her way, against the will of the sperm “donor”, to get access to that sperm, and gets pregnant.
Those who argue that the embryo is a person and should be protected as such have a point, but it rests on their assertion and I reject that assertion.
But I refuse to agree that a woman who gets pregnant as the result of a felony she commits has no responsibilities due to her actions. I’m pro choice, and I’m certainly not convinced the man should have the rights to force an abortion (for reasons I quoted above). But the brood cow analogy falls flat on its face. A brood cow has no choice and is not responsible for the situation it’s in. A female rapist is definitely responsible for her actions. Totally different situation, and I don’t see anything illuminating about the brood cow analogy.
You may feel that responsibility for feloneous acts is unimportant, but I don’t rule that out.
I’ve never met a brood cow that committed a felony. 
No, instead of a “brood cow”, she’s simply forced to deal with the result of her illegal behavior. (As I mentioned, I don’t consider that sufficient, but it isn’t as though this was forced on her, quite the opposite, she forced it on her victim.)
The rape makes it different, in my mind, from concensual sex. But for reasons more legal than ethical, I still don’t think I could support a forced abortion. I don’t think the rape victim should be responsible for child support, and even the one court case cited above (arguing to the contrary) seems to support my reasoning.
I really hate when people like you are on “my side”. This is such an offensive post. Statistically it’s almost certain there are men who’ve been raped by a women reading this thread. How do you think a post like this makes them feel? You just said that focusing on their victimization diminishes “the real problem”. What an utterly disgusting thing to say.
You are not fighting sexism or the rape culture-- you are perpetuating it.
This is really bad if such things happens to any girl. She should decide what she wants. whatever is the decision but it should not harm the girl.
This has nothing to do with how a woman gets pregnant. It’s about forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will. Her prior criminal acts are irrelevant.
When sentencing people to prison (which removes one’s ability to do what they wish with their body), prior criminal acts are often considered. Why is this criminal act irrelevant? Criminals lose rights. Why is the right to abortion sacrosanct?
Pregnancy is not a punishment. The situation at the time of conception is irrelevant. This is the old ‘rape and incest’ argument rehashed, that a woman must be punished for having sex by being forced tocontinue a pregnancy unless the pregnancy wasn’t ‘her fault’ because the sex wasn’t voluntary. This is not at all different from saying a woman can’t have an abortion because she voluntarily had sex.
In your humble opinion.
In mine, it does matter.
Which of us is right? It’s a matter of opinion, not fact.
However, the legal issues involved seem to fall on your side here (not that I have a side, I’m just fighting bad arguments, or in this case, a bad analogy).
I stand by my point that “brood cow” is a bad analogy and sheds no light on the subject. You have every right to feel that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy regardless of the circumstances. That’s a reasonable proposition, but if you want to convince people, you have to provide arguments, not simply state your proposition as though it’s a fact.
Note that you have provided good arguments elsewhere above, and I’m not disagreeing with your position. I’m just arguing against the brood cow analogy, which actually hurts your proposition more than helps it due to crucial differences between a beast of burden and a person making choices.
‘Brood cow’ is apt. The counter argument is to remove the capacity to make decisions from a woman. Animals can be forced to maintain a pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose for herself independent of previous actions. The rape scenario presented here is simply a canard.
I say it is (or rather, could be considered) different, because it’s the result of a felony.
For example, if someone dies by accident when I’m standing in line at a bank doing normal legal stuff, I’m not responsible, even if the accident happened as a result of some ordinarly innocuous action of mine. But if the accident happens and I’m robbing the bank, it’s murder 1.
It’s also different because the father’s “partcipation” was coerced, which is very different from the voluntary case.
Still, you’re right that there’s a difference between the kinds of punishment the legal system provides and forcing abortions. A huge difference, and IMHO that’s the deciding issue here. A change to allow forced abortion in a case like this would seem to me to be a very big change to our legal/penal system.
There is still no relevant connection between the circumstances of conception and a woman’s right to have an abortion.
It’s not apt. It works against you, because it highlights the difference between the circumstances that caused the situation. Every time you use this argument, you convince people of the opposite of your point.
I admit that the proposal would be to remove the capacity to make decisions from a woman. That’s what we do when we put people in prison.
The key issue here isn’t the ones you’re pointing out, but the medical nature of the “punishment”. We generally don’t force operations on (or deny operations to)felons due to their crimes. If we do it at all, we do it for medical reasons (or financial reasons in the deny case).
You can keep repeating this, but that doesn’t make it true. Can you back up this claim? Are you making this from a legal standpoint or an ethical one? Is it based on some ethical system, or do you believe it to be an a-priori truth?
Again, if you’re hoping to convince someone, you need to actually make an argument.
If you’re saying that this is the current legal status, I believe you are completely correct, but we are also discussing what we feel should be, not just what is.
If you’re just expressing your opinion, based on your values, then you have every right to do so.
I am arguing the legality because that is something specific. You and others have failed to justify your point that the cause of a pregnancy somehow influences the woman’s legal right to an abortion. That point has been struck down in law when laws attempted to restrict the right to abortion except for cases of rape or incest. Legally the cause of the pregnancy is irrelevant. If you have some other opinion why that law is wrong you are going to have to justify it somehow. Your opinion that the cause of a pregnancy is relevant hasn’t been supported in any way. As an example, if a person is dying from an overdoes of illegal drugs should they be denied the right to medical treatment because they caused their own condition in an illegal act?
I’m undecided on the bigger issue here, but this isn’t a good argument. The question is “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?”
To say that the law doesn’t allow it doesn’t really answer the question as asked.
I’d just answer no. Legally a woman has a right to terminate any pregnancy. On what basis would you argue otherwise? If it’s a matter of personal morality, that’s fine, for you when you get pregnant. What argument do you have that would apply to the OP. Remember that the premise is that a legal definition is part of the question in the OP. How does the legal implication of this crime impact a woman’s right to an abortion?
Doesn’t the victim have a right not to become a parent against his will?
Never mind. I see that the OP was the opposite situation.
Again, I’m not trying to argue one side or another here. The question is far too tough for me to throw my weight behind one side or the other. However…
First of all, a woman does not have the legal right to terminate any pregnancy.
I’d say the crime could impact a woman’s right to an abortion the same way a crime could impact even the sacred “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. The precedent for losing rights is there.
Could you expand on that please? I’m not sure what you are referring to.
You could say that. But what is your justification? First you have to consider that a woman is unlikely to be tried and convicted for rape in less than 9 months. If she wants an abortion before a conviction there is no basis for denying her rights. It would have no bearing on her guilt or innocence, nor would it interfere with the process of the trial either. Then you have to consider that there is no other crime for which the punishment is a forced pregnancy, or anything remotely like it. The pregnancy itself is totally irrelevant and not even a factor in the crime, a woman raping a man is not theft of sperm.
If you want to argue that the circumstances of conception or the sperm provider’s wishes affect a woman’s right to an abortion then there is no reason to use this silly hypothetical to argue it, those justifications would apply to many other pregnancies.