Should a man have a right to an abortion if he is raped?

Great Debates
41

I read an article relating to this, in Playboy mag of all places.

They claimed that children’s courts only take into account the best interests of the child. Therefore, even a man who has been raped by a woman, or had his sperm stolen can be forced to pay child support.

They used the example of a man who passed out drunk at a party. A woman in view of others aroused and mounted him. She proclaimed afterwards that he “saved her a trip to the sperm bank”.

Granted, this is an unusual situation. In most cases, the facts wouldn’t be laid out so plainly. However, even though this man clearly did nothing wrong and doens’t deserve to be punished, he was forced to pay child support because he was the father.

42

That is an unfortunate case, not just because it is unfair to subject a rape victim to financial penalty but because the court’s solution does not seem like it really is in the best interest of the child. The child is certainly better off with the child support money than without, but there is no way I would consider it in any child’s best interest to be raised by a rapist. The biological father in this case would be legally entitled to visitation and probably could have made a good case for getting full custody of the child if he wanted it, but if he did not the child should have been placed in adoptive or foster care. Either way, the question of the victim paying child support should never have even come up.

I’m a bit surprised that the mother was allowed custody, as the courts do not normally like leaving children in the care of convicted sex offenders. The only explanation I can think of is that the woman was not convicted of rape, either because the man did not press charges or because she was found “not guilty”. Did the article say anything about this? If she raped him and was not convicted then that is very unfortunate indeed, but it does explain the children’s court decision. From a legal standpoint, if the woman was not convicted of any crime then I don’t think she could be treated any differently than any other pregnant woman/single mother by the court when it came to making the child support and custody decisions. But perhaps a lawyer could shed some light on this matter for us.

43

The question as posed initially looks like trolling, but it’s actually a very good point. Oddly enough, I think male-rape is the LEAST of the situations where this concept is applicable.

It is currently the law of the land that an abortion is the SOLE choice of the woman. This is not an adjunct to, but rather a key element of the “right to privacy” on which Roe V. Wade is built and a key stance of the pro-choice viewpoint – “Don’t tell me what to do with my body!” (See other discussions right on this board to demonstrate this)

Regardless of whether this is “right” or “wrong,” I think it is not fair or logical to have one individual (the father) be subjected to extensive, decades-long consequences of a decision by another individual over which he has NO SAY.

Rather, I think that during any period during which a pregnant woman COULD legally have an abortion, the father of that child should be able to submit a binding legal declaration disowning the child, and be released from ANY obligation (and ANY rights) as far as the child is concerned. Since the man cannot force an abortion to be performed, since that is 100% the woman’s choice, he should NOT be subjected to the consequences of her choice without his consent to it.

I think this should be both A) a matter of public record, B) sacrosanct (i.e. no coming back 20 years later to ‘find your birth child and build a relationship’), and C) come with a life-long automatic restraining order preventing the father from seeking to contact or knowingly be in the vicinity of the child.

The only possible counter-argument is the “it takes two to tango” theory – that the man quite literally sealed his responsibility in the act of ejaculation… While one could certainly argue that point, I think one must do a goose & gander thing… If a man’s responsibility commences at conception, so do his rights (i.e. to demand an abortion). Similary, if conception is a strong enough event to create this life-long obligation by the father, then why is it not strong enough to create at least a nine-month obligation by the mother to bring the child to fruition?

44

It may lead to good points relating to child custody and child support obligations, which seems to be the subject that interests you, but that is not really the same issue as that raised in the thread title and OP. Nor is the question of genetic property or who “owns” a clone. If these were subjects the OP wished to discuss I wish he had started a thread about them instead, because the idea of making it legal under any circumstances for anyone to force an abortion on an unconsenting pregnant woman is repellant. Such a serious violation of human dignity, Constitutional rights, US law and legal precedent, and medical ethics goes far beyond sexism into a realm that I cannot even begin to describe without violating Godwin’s Law.

So I must disagree with you in that I do not think that the suggestion that any form of forced abortion be legalized should be considered a “good point” in and of itself. It is at best a foolish point made by someone who has not thought through the full implications of such a law, as I believe is the case here, and at worst is something so sickening and immoral that I have a difficult time imagining what sort of person could seriously believe such a thing should happen.

45

Lamia (the irony…) we are in agreement that a womam should have absolute control over her reproductive system. But, is a developing zygote part of that system? Isn’t it a half-and-half affair (more irony), chromosome-wise? Does this change the issue from control of the reproductive system to control of what is inside the system?

46

Lamia: Since you’ve managed to throw out two paragraphs in response to my one line, I anxiously await your doubltess overflowing response to the actual points I made, rather than the lead-in.

While I tend to agree that forced abortion is not acceptable (though I find your venom on the subject unnecessary – if a pro-life poster used that sort of rant in support of “the bloody slaughter of poor innocent babies ripped screaming and dismembered from their mother’s womb,” for example, you would be the first to thrash them I suspect), you have completely failed to address the real point of my post.

To reiterate succinctly: if conception does NOT create sufficient obligation on the part of a woman to bear the resulting child, how is it that it DOES create a life-long obligation for support on the part of the man? While the “choice” to force an abortion admittedly intrudes upon the woman’s body, what rights does the choice to “opt out” intrude upon?

Emilio

47

Explain to me how one could exercise control over a developing zygote without having any effect on the body of the woman carrying that zygote, and I will recognize your distinction. Otherwise you are just asking whether being a genetic contributor to the zygote should give the biological father the right to do things to the body of the pregnant woman without her consent, and the answer to that is plainly “no” – and I think every respectable judge, lawyer, doctor, and ethicist in the country would agree with me on that.

48

You’ll have to keep waiting, because (as I thought I made clear), child support issues are not the subject of this thread. They are also not a subject I am particularly interested in discussing. There have been plenty of threads on that subject and if you want a guaranteed response to your points on the matter than you can start a new one and I am sure someone will oblige you. I am not, however, under any obligation to participate in a thread hijack that I am not interested in. I addressed only the portion of your post relating directly to the OP because that is what I am here to discuss. As you can see by looking at the top of your screen, the question asked here is “Should a man have a right to an abortion if he is raped?” and my reason for participating in this thread is to answer that question with an emphatic “No.”

49

This wider question, not really within the bounds of the OP here, was covered in previous threads. Here’s one that I started myself maybe half a year ago that ended up with 269 replies:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125948&highlight=Male+Abortion

And I know Stoid refers to one he started also. Should be good places to look.

50

You can always choose to respond or not, Lamea. The fact is that the “hijack” you accuse me of here is in fact my direct ANSWER to the original question. Let me make it clear for you using very small words:

Should a man have a right to an abortion if he is raped?"

No, but ONLY if he is able to legally disown any sort of obligation for the resulting child – a right he should have in ANY pregnancy regardless of rape or not. If he does not have this ability, then yes he should be able to compel an abortion. This latter ONLY in the case of rape, not a general rule.

If you feel that making it clear I believe the solution available to the man in case of rape is the same solution that should be available to him in ANY case is a “hijack” then your interpretation of ‘on topic’ is so narrow that I’m surprised you can find latitude to respond further than “yes” or “no” to any question on this board.

51

And that is what I am doing, choosing not to respond to your points that do not interest me. I am not yet so bored that I must write about things that I do not find interesting. What I am choosing to respond to is your rather rude reaction to my failure to respond to these points, because I do not think such behavior is acceptable here. I believe that is all I have to say to you at this time. I wish you the best of luck in finding someone else to discuss the things you are interested in with.

52

Rude? Whatever… I don’t need the last word, it’s yours.

Folks, I’ve even posted my question as a “real” topic so we don’t have to “hijack” this topic. I remain genuinely interested in hearing any/all viewpoints on it.

53

If it takes Lamia three posts to not respond to a topic, I wonder many it would take her to respond to one.

54

Lamia, your body is not a legal sanctuary. If you steal something and have it surgically implanted into you, then the courts can order it removed when you are caught. In this case, your rights not be be cut open and have stuff taken out of you would be trumped.

It is not necessary that there be no effect on the woman. Actually, if the law can let police officers confiscate drugs smuggled in subcutaneously, then I see no reason why (provided you consider a zygote nonhuman) you couldn’t have a legal mandate to remove a zygote. Especially if the chromosomes used to jump-start the zygote were stolen.

55

So Lamia, Coke or Pepsi? Which is it? I need to know if I’m a misogynistic bastard or not. Please?

Enjoy,
Steven

56

I can well believe that a court might say, “Consent to this procedure to retrieve the stolen material implanted in your body or you must reimburse the victim for its value/go to prison”, but I will need to see a cite if you wish me to believe that a surgeon can and will (under both the law and established medical ethics) perform a non-livesaving procedure on a patient who has not specifically consented to that procedure.

Of course, such a cite would only be relevant to this issue if a zygote can legally be considered property, and if a zygote residing in a woman’s womb can legally be considered anyone’s property other than that woman’s, so some cites for those would be nice too.

Ha, it was a trick! Anyone who drinks anything other than Royal Crown Cola is a misogynist. And a racist. And possibly a Satan-worshipper.

And finally to The Ryan, you seem to have a personal problem with me, as your only sole contributions to this thread have been unprovoked swipes at me. I do not know what could possibly be motivating this behavior. I certainly have not insulted you in any way in this thread, and although I recognize your username I do not remember ever participating in any exchange with you before. I know of no reason why there should be bad blood between us, nor why you are choosing to express your apparent personal dislike for me in this way in this forum, but I am going to have to ask you to stop it.

57

Seem to be a bit off the OP’s question here, don’t we…??? Haven’t mentioned rape in quite a while, have we? We should, it’s 100% pertinent to the issue of property and stolen property…

Let’s look at it this way: if you, Lamia, were to drug me and while I was unconscious use a syringe to remove sperm from my testes, that would pretty clearly be stolen property. If you sold it to a sperm bank, the money you got would be proceeds of stolen property. If you use it to impregnate yourself via artificial insemination, it’s also pretty clearly misuse of stolen property. Rape of a man is a different mechanism, but no different in result. It’s somewhat like money laundering. If you steal money, then use it to go out and make a purchase of legitimate, normal goods from a legitimate store, the goods you buy, while not themselves stolen, are still ill-gotten-gains and are tainted. As would be a pregnancy resulting from rape of a man.

Cite? How about the mafioso here in New York who smuggled sperm out of prison to his wife who used it to become pregnant? The courts clearly have no problem treating it as property (in this case illicit property) seeking to control it, and reacting based on that idea (he’s being tried for it). They also seem to be comfortable treating the results of the stolen property (his daughter) as part of the proceedings (he’s being denied visitation rights). And THAT was in a situation of mutual consent!

Courts have ordered medical procedures a number of times (Sikes V. State of North Carolina is one I know of where the courts imposed heart surgery on the daughter of Christian Scientists). Courts have imposed blood transfusions on Jehovah’s Witnesses. Courts regularly impose mandatory medication on the mentally challenged (schizophrenics in particular). The idea that courts can not and will not impose non-consensual medical rulings is patently wrong.

So the bottom line is if you USE my property to create an effect, whether it’s to get some money from a sperm bank, get pregnant or what-have-you, you have still used my property illegally and without my permission, and I should have rights to seek redress by any reasonable means. An abortion, considering how many are performed each year voluntarily, considering the vast number of people who vociferously defend abortion as a RIGHT of women, certainly wouldn’t seem to be a cruel or unusual means… I don’t see anyone clamoring to be put into prison, but that’s not cruel and unusual. I don’t see anyone clamoring for the right to pay fines, lose one’s driver’s license, have one’s property seized, or face court orders prohibiting certain behavior. Nobody DEMANDS these things, but they’re all acceptable consequences of illegal acts. I find it hard to believe that a procedure which is not only requested, but vehemently demanded by so many is so heinous when applied as a consequence of illegal behavior.

And I have to add that anyone who disagrees with you, points out when you seem to be a touch hypocritical, or doesn’t accept your viewpoint about what’s “on topic” in this debate is NOT bashing you, doesn’t necessarily dislike you, and isn’t showing “bad blood.” The Ryan is far from the only person you’ve defamed here for having the temerity to call attention to the fact that you may not be right about everything.

Realize that I don’t disagree with you out of some knee-jerk dislike: for example - I happen to also like RC. Down with the fiends of Atlanta!

58

How exactly did I end up as the sole representative of the opposition here? I was not the first or only person to disagree with the OP, and yet the others all seem to have moved on to greener pastures quite quickly and I find myself here with all the support points (and indeed every post on the this page that I have not written myself) addressed to me. I don’t think I’ve ever received so much attention even in threads I started myself, and I can’t say that I enjoy it.

As much as I support reproductive choice, even a shut-in like myself can only devote so much time to one thread, especially one where I do not seem to be making any headway, and this particular thread has become personally unpleasant for me. I do not generally announce my departure from threads as I am not so conceited as to think that my absence will even be noticed, but since I’m holding up one end of the debate all by myself here I thought it only fair to mention it so the rest of you aren’t left feeling foolish. My apologies to robertliguori; as much as I disagree with you on this issue you seem a decent enough chap, and I was curious to see what you had to say next.

59

This thread was a time bomb from the get-go.

60

I’m glad you think well of me, Lamia. I, too, have realized that I have been having to answer multiple people’s posts all by myself, lest I ‘lose’. It is as you say not a pleasant feeling.

Therefore, if anyone would like to take up Lamia’s argument where she left off, or just go against the zeitgeist presented in this thread, please feel more than welcome.