Our Shared Shelf discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archive
>
Rape, Abortion & the Law: WARNING EXPLICIT CONTENT
I copied the post I made on the other thread:"I'd say that the man still has no rights to tell the woman to have the baby or not because his right ends where her body begins. Likewise her rights ended where his body begins and she should get jail time for raping him. However, he does not (in my eyes) have any right to tell the woman rapist what to do with her body. If she wants to keep the baby, fine. If not, then she should be able to have an abortion.
To me at least, it's a matter of where does one person's right begin and end (like a bubble around their own body that does not infringe upon someone else's body bubble if that makes sense?). If the matter concerned has to do with what someone does with their body, then that is where (in my eyes) everybody's rights END, except for the person who is the actual inhabitant of said body. Simple as that to me at the very least. Therefore the woman rapist has no right to rape the man and should get jail time for it, but the man also has no right to tell the female rapist what to do with her potential baby and body.
If the two individuals were transgender, i.e. the rapist was a woman but with male genitalia, and the raped was a man but with female genitalia, and there was a baby begotten by the man... Then since the man in this case IS carrying the baby, he has full right to decide what to do with it - to get an abortion or not - since it is HIS body that's carrying the baby. The woman rapist has no say in the matter because she is not carrying the baby, so she would go to jail for that and the man would decide what to do with his body and the potential baby."
I'll add that even if the male victim wants the child to be aborted and the female rapist wants the child to be born, the female rapist has rights over her body and has the right to keep the child if she so wants to. Nevermind that she "stole" genetic material from the man, it is her body to do with as she will. The baby is growing in her body so thus she has the right to decide what to do with it. She is the mother, she is carrying it, and she has the right to decide whether to abort it or keep it. Full stop.
It's not like the male victim bottled up semen that she stole a bottle of that and thus stole his "property," and could be sued for that. Sex does not always result in pregnancy so if it did, then she has the right to deal with her body as she will. I would say the same exact thing regardless if the pregnant rapist is a man, woman, or identifies as any other gender. If they are the ones pregnant with their body carrying the baby, then they should be the one to make the decision. No one else.
That's how I see it at least.
In scenario A I believe the jailed female rapist should be allowed to get an abortion. The emotional part of people would be tempted to force her to carry the baby to term as part of her just desserts, but this would be cruel and unusual punishment. Just as it's satisfying to some people to imagine allowing men convicted of rape being raped in prison, but completely unjust. We have to take our emotions out of it and treat everyone to the same rights under the law. Besides which, if denied access to abortion I don't think it would be a safe situation for a developing fetus. She could try and hurt herself or go on a hunger strike or something out of spite, anything to try and miscarry. Either way, the pro-life male rape survivor is traumatized again when the child conceived by force is lost. But this is not the domain of justice. Perhaps if the man really wanted to have the child, he could have a lawyer or mediator or someone talk to her to try and convince her to carry to term. The only way I can think of that would convince someone like that was if they worked out with the judge to reduce her sentence, or that they would look good to the parole board, and guarantee without a doubt that she would get out of prison early. They would have to work really hard to convince her to carry that child, because as I understand it having a baby in prison is often quite abysymal. They take you to the hospital to labour in chains. Then, what if upon seeing her child, she decided she changed her mind, and wants to keep it? Most likely I like to think she would lose custody due to having committed a crime. But who knows. Barring a supreme miscarriage of justice(no pun intended), the man should be able to get sole custody. But that woman will get out of prison eventually, and maybe sooner than expected, and if she's an asshole with access to lawyers, might use family court to continue to harrass and intimidate her former victim, in the guise of wanting to be involved in her child's life. Who knows. I would like to know if this has ever happened in real life, as it would make an amazing true crime drama or documentary in the vein of 'Dear Zachary'. But there are very few female-on-male rapes as it is.
In scenario B, she should be allowed to have the baby, but hopefully she would not get to keep it. It would be given up to the state to be placed in foster care, hopefully in a permanent home, best-case scenario. I shudder to think what they would feel when they reach 18 and look up who their parents were. But hey at least they're alive, and hopefully well-adjusted and able to access maybe some mental health resources to be able to deal with this. Ideally the adoptive parents would be warned about the mom having been in prison. I think there must be a novel somewhere about this very situation, am I thinking of The World According to Garp?
Elizabeth wrote: "In scenario A I believe the jailed female rapist should be allowed to get an abortion. The emotional part of people would be tempted to force her to carry the baby to term as part of her just desse..."Although I would probably agree with your reasoning for Scenario A, I have to disagree with you in Scenario B.
Imagine if you had a stalker. And during the night, that stalker broke into your home while you were asleep and cut off a lock of your hair. Now said stalker was caught. But how would you feel if that stalker was allowed to keep your hair even after his punishment (both fine and jailtime)?
Indigo wrote: "I copied the post I made on the other thread:"I'd say that the man still has no rights to tell the woman to have the baby or not because his right ends where her body begins. Likewise her rights ..."
(Talking about Scenario B here)
So once a man's semen leaves his body, it is no longer his property or his rights? In that case, once a child is born (leaves the mother's body) and the umbilical cord is severed, the child is no longer the mother's or the father's child? It sounds illogical don't you think?
Jing Wen wrote: "Indigo wrote: "I copied the post I made on the other thread:"I'd say that the man still has no rights to tell the woman to have the baby or not because his right ends where her body begins. Likew..."
I don't think he ( or she) ould be allowed to keep my hair, but hypothetically if they were I would be weirded out but I wouldn't really fight too hard to get the hair back. It's just hair. This isn't the Harry Potter universe wherein people can make jinxes and polyjuice potions out of my dead keratin. But really, there is NO WAY he or she would be allowed to keep my hair, that would probably be taken in evidence.This is a ridiculous hypothetical.
There is no applicable analogy to rape, as there is no other crime which involves the the risk of unintended procreation. Taking back a lock of hair which has been stolen doesn't require an invasive procedure to get it from the inside of the stalker's body, unless they swallowed it and there are medical complications which prevent it from getting out on its own. But still the hair remains entirely composed of material from the person it was stolen from. It doesn't change over time but it remains hair, and it comes out on its own eventually but remains hair. Conception is a unique situation in which pieces of two people combine to make a unique thing which can be thought of as a person or potential person or a bundle of cells depending on personal philosophy and your state's laws.
We're not talking about stealing sperm here, like stealing a unit of donated sperm from a fertlity clinic or something. The stolen semen inside the rapist's body, goes mostly unused except for one spermatozoa. The rest of the semen gets out, the same door it got in( didn't mean to paint a picture, but, you know what I mean). Once one sperm combines genetic information with an egg that becomes a different thing. When that zygote changes into a blastocyst it's another state of the same thing, then when it attaches to a uterine lining it's a pregnancy, every day becoming slightly more human than before, until it is viable around 24 weeks the host has more rights than the guest. A man's semen can leave his body and he has the legal right to donate it or use it how he sees fit, and in consensual sex situations it is understood that conception is a possibility. A woman's ovum doesn't naturally leave the body without assistance from fertility doctors or something. Unless we engineer a kind of Aldous Huxley future where a fetus develops entirely inside of a bottle or people are agender or asexual(in the biological sense of the word). Unless that happens, the female sex naturally just bears more risks in the process of reproduction. It is not sexist to allow the female more rights than the possible child she carries, or the male who had his genetic material involuntarily or voluntarily added to the new potential human. She has the responsibility for that combination of genes while it is in her body, including whether or not it lives. After it is viable and born alive, it has full human rights. It can be taken away from the mother for its protection, or the mother can sign away her parental rights. Babies cannot be legally adopted before they are born. Until they are born they are under the domain of the female body that carries them. We can't force people to give up their bodily autonomy just because they were dealt two x chromosomes.
This is an interesting conversation but I feel a bit icky about talking about such a silly hypothetical when there are people getting raped for real every day. Men, and women get raped. And the vast majority of rapists are (cis)men. Does this conversation really add any useful ideas to help understand the problem of male rape victims, who are mostly getting abused by other men in prison and in the army/navy/airforce, or in abusive same-sex relationships?
Elizabeth wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Indigo wrote: "I copied the post I made on the other thread:"I'd say that the man still has no rights to tell the woman to have the baby or not because his right ends where her b..."
"I don't think he ( or she) ould be allowed to keep my hair"
In my opinion, semen compared to hair is an even more personal substance. I'd let people touch my hair before I let them touch my semen.
Taking back a lock of hair which has been stolen doesn't require an invasive procedure to get it from the inside of the stalker's body, unless they swallowed it and there are medical complications which prevent it from getting out on its own.
Drug mules have no rights to say no to "invasive procedures" when caught with a belly full of illegal substances.
Why is it so important for Pro-Choice to win in the case of a female victim? Two reasons.
1. The physical pain and suffering of carrying a child.
2. The mental torture of having a living reminder of that traumatic experience in the form of a child who shares your genes with that of the rapist.
Men might be luckier for not having to go through the pain of pregnancy. But would you deny the male victim a little more mental peace by allowing the rapist to give birth?
Dada wrote: "Exactly. The woman would not be allowed to raise her child in jail. In the meantime, the child would be placed with the woman's family or perhaps foster care until she is released.Assuming that t..."
And also the social stigma of "What kind of man doesn't take care of his own kid".
Dada wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "And also the social stigma of "What kind of man doesn't take care of his own kid". "Yup, just as "blaming the victim" happens to women, it also happens to men.
I used to work at..."
I wonder, has there been any cases where the house and custody of kids go to the husband in the case of a house husband with a bread winner wife.
Interesting, ethics are never easy. I'll try to find my own solution by talking around the scenarios first.Organ donation.
A dead person has rights to their organs, you can't harvest them after death, but have to respect the wishes of the deceased. We honour a corpse.
Organ donation again.
A dead person, who has an organ testament, still can't be sure that all organs they have given green light to be harvested will be actually collected, but there are cases today where relatives of the deceased push against organ donation. That is wrong. Doctors who listen to the relatives more than the deceased are not doing their duty. That is also wrong.
Man rapes woman.
She didn't ask to be raped and didn't ask to become pregnant. He has no right over her body. Nobody else has any right over her body either, but like in the case of the dead person, we honour her wishes, her autonomy. If she wants an abortion, she is entitled to one.
Woman rapes man.
He didn't ask to be raped, have his genetic material collected. What happens thereafter is irrelevant. His autonomy to his body was violated and our duty in the name of ethical decision-making is toward this man only, which translates to him having the right not to have his genes carried on in future generations. That is at the core of what being a Homo sapiens means. We don't force-seminate women subscribing to being childfree either.
Actually it was a very easy solution, I just didn't see it at first.
ETA Sorry, missed the tweak of Scenario A. If the female rapist doesn't want her genetic material carried on, that's her right, like the childfree thing above.
Given the unfortunate recent history of forced sterilization of women in prison, I'm really against making a woman have an abortion against her will, yes, even if she is a rapist. There right to reproduce is a human right, and even though we joke that some people just should be removed from the gene pool, we can't enforce that, because that would be eugenics.
Well, that depends: if the victim wants to keep the baby and raise him/her, well, that's more complicated. BUT, if he doesn't want his rapist to get an abortion just because he's pro-life, thhat wouldn't make any sence: both of them, the male victim who didn't want the abortion just because he's pro-life, but has no interest in raising the him/her, and the female victimizer, who is probably going to jail for her crime, are sentencing the child to grow in an orphanage, an institute everyone knows, is not a nice place.On the other hand, just as other people said above, the female victimizer has the right to do with her own body, and in spite of what he's been through, the victim has no right of telling his victimizer what to do with her body. But again, she lost her rights when she raped the man.
It's still illegal for women to rape men. And she should be punished to the full extent of the law for that crime. it is morally wrong and it is illegal. But there is no way for her to return the "stolen property" of his semen. It no longer exists anymore. If she had taken his semen and thrown it into the ocean, that would be as easy to return. It is unfortunate, but it is gone. The fetus is not composed entirely of his semen. It is not housed in his body. The victim doesn't get to decide which medical procedures the rapist needs. I'm sure if I was brutally raped I would ask that my rapist be administered daily enemas, maybe have an elective apendectomy, or a circumcision, without anasthetic. But that is not up to me, and the state cannot mandate this either.
Dada wrote: "So a male rape victim has to live with the trauma of a child borne against his will, but a woman doesn't?His genetic material exists, even if it has been transformed."
The thing is, he does want the child to be born.
A man has no right to either force or forbid an abortion. Period. If a woman has raped a man, she should be punished, but she still has the right to decide what happens to her body.Elizabeth has said all that needs to be said about it, but I'll just quote the essential bit:
It is not sexist to allow the female more rights than the possible child she carries, or the male who had his genetic material involuntarily or voluntarily added to the new potential human. She has the responsibility for that combination of genes while it is in her body, including whether or not it lives. After it is viable and born alive, it has full human rights. It can be taken away from the mother for its protection, or the mother can sign away her parental rights. Babies cannot be legally adopted before they are born. Until they are born they are under the domain of the female body that carries them. We can't force people to give up their bodily autonomy just because they were dealt two x chromosomes.
Elizabeth wrote: "Given the unfortunate recent history of forced sterilization of women in prison, I'm really against making a woman have an abortion against her will, yes, even if she is a rapist. There right to re..."What this boils down to is men aren't as valuable as women. This is no equality.
Sorry to say, but the only way to ensure also men's rights are accommodated is a forced abortion made on the female rapist. If he doesn't want to procreate and was raped against his will, it is he who has been violated, and she effectively gave up her right to decide the moment she chose to rape him. There are other ways to get pregnant than force a man against his will, and think of the legacy of the child.
Nothing in this scenario has anything to do with a history of force-sterilising women (you can't extrapolate anything from that history to either of the two scenarios in the OP), and it is no valid argument. This thread is among others about the right to choose whether to procreate or not, after a rape has taken place.
No, a female rapist doesn't give up her right to decide what to do with her own body. Just like a murderer doesn't give up the right not to be tortured or murdered during his punishment. Or his/her right not to be starved to death or to be denied medical attention. (Also, you're talking as if the woman rapes a man to get pregnant - it is possible that it's just an unfortunate side-effect)And yes, in this case women do have more rights than men. Because the woman carries the child and births the child, so she gets to decide if she wants to do so. Again, the woman in this case violated the man's body, but it doesn't give him or anyone the right to violate her body.
Sure there is. His rapist can, as Elizabeth said, be punished to the full extent of the law. But, again, men don't get to dictate what happens in a woman's uterus.
Dada wrote: "So you expect him to keep tabs on the rapist and the child's whereabouts indefinitely?Tell me, how would you enjoy looking up your attacker's address every couple of weeks? Sound like fun?"
You can keep asking rhetorical questions - the answer's still the same. The woman is the only one who gets a say in what happens in her uterus.
For a more thorough, scientific explanation, I suggest you read Robert's and Elizabeth's posts again.
I think this is a healthy discussion to have. It shows just how unequal men are in front of the law in many countries.We had a case of a man fathering a child, but the parents weren't married. He joined her at prenatal appoinments and was there when she gave birth. Then she dumped him and married her ex-partner after all. This lowlife of a woman has denied the biological father a paternity test and also denied him for years from seeing his own child. The legal system supports her... Which is f*cked up in all ways that are possible. Same with men being denied custody even when everyone sees how unfit the mother is after a divorce to take care of the kids.
And now this thread. Stealing sperm via rape gets defended. Just wow. Who would have thought there are advocates for women being above law when it comes to sexual harrassment and much worse (and please don't talk about the law being fair, some ridiculous examples were already presented and none of them is about real justice for the victim). What an insult to men who get raped and forced into fatherhood without any tools to fight back. I no longer wonder why there are men, who don't take feminism seriously, because talk about having double standards.
Robert wrote: "in short you can not stop abortion because fetus at early stage is not considered human and you cant force pregnancy because fetus is part of female body and any law giving you such right would giv..."Thank you for the thorough legal research into this, Robert. That is really shocking. I think it is unfair for men that in such cases they are liable for child support. The fact that many female victims of rape have to deal with custody battles doesn't make it fair. I think no one ought to have the rights of a parent if the child was conceived by force or statutory rape.
In Mary Kay Letourneau's case, the Fualaau boy's parents sued the school district for damages but failed to win the case.( I wonder if the school district even would have been able to cover the costs of two children anyway.) Though Fualaau later as an adult married Letourneau, and he has the right to make that decision as an adult, that is messed up.
Aglaea wrote: "I think this is a healthy discussion to have. It shows just how unequal men are in front of the law in many countries.We had a case of a man fathering a child, but the parents weren't married. He..."
No one's saying women should be above the law. If a woman rapes a man (or woman), she should be punished according to the law of the country she lives in.
But if she turns out to be pregnant, it's her decision whether she wants to terminate the pregnancy - just like it should be in any other situation.
No, I'm saying that a woman has the right to decide whether she wants to terminate a pregnancy or not.You can keep putting up strawmen arguments or hypothetical situations, but so far I haven't seen one logical, viable reason why she shouldn't.
Men don't have to be pregnant, they don't bleed out of their genitals once a month and they don't have to push a human being through any of their openings. On the flip side, they don't get to dictate whether women should have babies.
Now, I can see that nothing sensible will come of this, so I'll leave you to it.
Aglaea wrote: "Interesting, ethics are never easy. I'll try to find my own solution by talking around the scenarios first.Organ donation.
A dead person has rights to their organs, you can't harvest them after d..."
I think I would agree with your arguments here the most. In other words, the child can only be born with the consent of both the rapist and the victim. Else if either one rejects then abortion should be enforced.
Elizabeth wrote: "Given the unfortunate recent history of forced sterilization of women in prison, I'm really against making a woman have an abortion against her will, yes, even if she is a rapist. There right to re..."In that case, you would be against abortion if the rapist had been male and the victim female? Because you said it yourself.
There right to reproduce is a human right
Agustin wrote: "Well, that depends: if the victim wants to keep the baby and raise him/her, well, that's more complicated. BUT, if he doesn't want his rapist to get an abortion just because he's pro-life, thhat wo..."In scenario A it was mentioned that the victim(male) wishes to have the custody of the child.
Astrid wrote: "No, a female rapist doesn't give up her right to decide what to do with her own body. Just like a murderer doesn't give up the right not to be tortured or murdered during his punishment. Or his/her..."Just like a murderer doesn't give up the right not to be tortured or murdered during his punishment.
Capital Punishment.
Robert wrote: "to Aglaea and Dada: ah public policy vs science. Joy of defending freedom, Darwinism and immunology.Forcing women to be mothers brings us back to beginning of my post. Forcing women to be mothers..."
Your post started to confuse me at one point. It seems to me that you have only been talking about Scenario A. Can you please clarify your stand on Scenario B?
Robert wrote: "I addressed scenario B in all my posts...."In other words, you think it is right for a rape victim to be forced into fatherhood?
Robert wrote: "what is the point of writing these posts if you refuse to read them. you are not forced. child is protected from sins of its parents. you are not punished by fatherhood. Child is protected by our..."
If a male rape victim is "not forced" fatherhood. Then female rape victim's are also "not forced" into motherhood. In other words, by your logic, female rape victims should be denied abortion rights.
Jing Wen wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Given the unfortunate recent history of forced sterilization of women in prison, I'm really against making a woman have an abortion against her will, yes, even if she is a rapist...."If a male rapist gets a woman pregnant he should be punished, but not by sterilization or chemical castration. If he gets pregnant he can carry the fetus to term, he has that right to. (To my knowledge this hasn't happened yet, but trans men are humans with flaws and there are probably some who are capable of rape, just like there are some cis women who are capable) The right to reproduce is a human right. Like it or not, we cannot step in and terminate a pregnancy or sterilize people even though there are definitely people who "should not be allowed to reproduce" as people like to say in the comments of a particularly horrific child welfare case. But that opens the door to some scary legal precedents. Men and women used to be sterilized for being declared "idiots", for being criminals, for being declared unfit for reproduction, for basically just being immigrants and blacks, whatever reason the state decided. This has happened in the United States, as recently as 2010. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...
People don't have the right to violate another's body. As people have said before, the person with a uterus biologically takes on more risk in giving birth, and that is their medical decision between them and their doctors. This may result in horrible family situations that child services is not always equipped to deal with, but we can only do the best we can with the system we have, it's not a perfect world.
There is a great documentary on PBS tonight about an historic class-action lawsuit involving Latina women sterilized during c-sections in prison in the 70's. Maybe I am getting a bit off-topic but it's maybe of interest to some of you in the U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/mag...
edit: it appears many PBS channels aired this documentary on Monday, check local listings or view it online
Elizabeth wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Given the unfortunate recent history of forced sterilization of women in prison, I'm really against making a woman have an abortion against her will, yes, even if..."Your argument that uses the "risk" of abortion is flawed and I will show you why.
There can only be 3 possible cases.
Case 1. Risk of abortion is equal to risk of giving birth.
In this case, risk literally makes no difference. Therefore argument is obsolete.
Case 2. Risk of abortion is lower then risk of giving birth.
In this case, in Scenario B the child should be aborted because by the risk definition, it is better for the rapist to abort.
Case 3. Risk of abortion is higher then risk of giving birth.
In this case, in Scenario A, the child should be born and given custody rights to the male victim because by risk definition, it is safer for the rapist to give birth.
I await your reply.
Edit: sorry in case 3 there was a typo earlier. thx to Dada for spotting it.
Astrid wrote: "No, I'm saying that a woman has the right to decide whether she wants to terminate a pregnancy or not.You can keep putting up strawmen arguments or hypothetical situations, but so far I haven't se..."
Yes, when both parties are agreeing on the pregnancy, or she became pregnant from rape against her own will. But when she stole his sperm in a most degrading way, why should the same rules apply? She did a crime and he does not want his sperm inside her, he never gave her the permission to take it and use it. When you allow her to keep using it, she is above the law. His rights are effectively being ignored.
There's no consistency in most arguments that people present.If she rapes him, he doesn't want the child, but she wants the child, she decides.
If she rapes him, he does want the child, but she doesn't want the child, she decides.
If he rapes her, he doesn't want the child, but she wants the child, she decides.
If he rapes her, he does want the child, but she doesn't want the child, she decides.
This doesn't add up. It isn't his fault that he can't carry the child, yet still is required to make a child.
He should, however, have some kind of say in the whole matter. The alternatives above effectively rob him of any chance to decide, even though his sperm makes up half of the genetic material of a child. It is unequal. We can't split up the child carrying for obvious reasons, but this doesn't mean men are less important in the process.
The situation is brought to its utmost extreme in rape, when she rapes him, and then people still want to protect her rights more than his. This is so wrong.
Every human being should have autonomy about their body (female genital mutilation, male circumcision, sperm, egg cell, other parts removed under torture, body parts removed when infections are threatening life, etc.).
You can't just walk around taking pieces of other people to do with them whatever you feel like. This most certainly includes egg cells and sperms.
I've been thinking a lot about this thread and am quite troubled by some of the opinions in it. I'll try to explain why.If a woman rapes without being on birth control or using a condom, there is a fair chance of *intent* to become pregnant. If he objects to this, that should be enough. There are certain situations in which a man can be physiologically vulnerable, and to fail to recognise this fact is to fail all men. The same way as men can put pills in a woman's drink for example, so can women do the same in a man's drink (although I'm not well-versed in technicalities around raping a man).
What is at stake here is the right to remain childfree and/or choose when and with whom to procreate. This should apply to both men and women.
Let's examine the following scenarios:
1. If a woman, currently childless for random reason (or childfree), is sterilised against her will, we are horrified (or are we because if she was childfree maybe she was asking for it a bit? <- that was me poking with a stick).
2. If a man, currently childless for random reason (or childfree), is sterilised against his will, we are horrified (or are we because if he was childfree maybe he was asking for it a bit? <- that was me poking with a stick).
(Asking for it? Even though these people wish to remain childfree, we still won't rob them of their choice to change their mind later.)
3. If a woman is force-inseminated, we are horrified.
4. If a man's genetic material is collected against his will to use in semination, we are possibly not horrified (we haven't discussed this part but based on evidence so far we aren't horrified at all).
5. If a childfree (or currently childless for random reason) woman is raped, we are horrified, and think she should be allowed abortion.
6. If a childfree (or currently childless for random reason) man is raped, with a pregnant woman the result of it, we don't care, because he was dense enough not to be born with a uterus, in which case he would have had a choice. Now, however, his opinion doesn't matter at all, but we force him to become a parent. Recall the part about intent earlier. Still, the message goes, tough luck pal. If you're really royally fucked (pun so utterly intended in a sarcastic sense), the icing on your cake is to pay child support.
It isn't like robbing a tv or a car. It is the beginnings of a child. When someone robs your house, it's material goods lost.
- In the case of a woman being raped, we acknowledge that there has been a fusion of genetic material. She is (should be) allowed a choice whether to abort or not.
- In the case of a man being raped, the scenario is basically being compared to a tv or a car, since the conclusion has been that the rapist's uterus can't be touched, but there will be other ways to reinforce laws. He isn't allowed a choice whether to procreate or not.
Please recall my earlier comments on intent as well as it not being his fault for not having a uterus, but that out of logistical reasons, only one of two can carry a child through pregnancy. This doesn't mean that his needs shouldn't be met and respected, though, or that his 50% of the genetic material is any less valuable. Men are as valuable as women, and if the roles were reversed, we'd be as eager to protect women's interests in having autonomy of our egg cells (he wouldn't be allowed to steal them to become pregnant when he felt like it).
I'm horrified beyond all description at the lack of consistency in protecting people in vulnerable moments. I was taught to protect the party who is the weaker one, and in cases of women raping men, it so happens that men are the weaker ones. Why fail them so utterly?
Aglaea wrote: "There's no consistency in most arguments that people present.If she rapes him, he doesn't want the child, but she wants the child, she decides.
If she rapes him, he does want the child, but she d..."
If she rapes him, he doesn't want the child, but she wants the child, she decides.
If she rapes him, he does want the child, but she doesn't want the child, she decides.
If he rapes her, he doesn't want the child, but she wants the child, she decides.
If he rapes her, he does want the child, but she doesn't want the child, she decides.
Brilliantly put. Cheers!
Dada wrote: "Well, Aglaea, as has been pointed out, some countries don't even recognize that a woman could possibly rape a man. That alone means that a male rape victim of a female aggressor has limited legal o..."Yup, that's why I'm so vocal about this all of a sudden.
Mod
I have been contemplating commenting here, but I know that if I do, many people will disagree with what I have to say. But I will just leave you with this opinion--if a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant, and she wants an abortion but the father wishes to raise the child with all good intentions, I think she should be made to carry it. She broke the law, and while it may have psychological effects on her, she is going to be punished one way or another. A child, well, unborn child, should not have to suffer for the complete stupidity of some woman who breaks the law.
Savannah wrote: "I have been contemplating commenting here, but I know that if I do, many people will disagree with what I have to say. But I will just leave you with this question--if a woman rapes a man and gets ..."@Savannah
Since I started this thread, I am totally convinced from the beginning that for Scenario B, the victim should be prioritized and the child should be aborted.
However, I have yet seen anything regarding Scenario A which would be fair to all parties. I guess with our current laws and technology, we are severely limited. I agree with you that the man should be allowed custody of the child. But on the other hand, I also think that pregnancy is quite heavy a punishment regardless of scenario.
Also, this is quite a heavy topic and any side taken would not be an easy one. Your contribution is very much appreciated. Cheers!
Mod
Jing Wen wrote: "Savannah wrote: "I have been contemplating commenting here, but I know that if I do, many people will disagree with what I have to say. But I will just leave you with this question--if a woman rape..."
Thanks for your reply.
You say my thoughts on that matter would be considered quite a heavy punishment on a woman, yes? I type all this without malice, might I add, since I do not want anyone to think I am arguing or trying to be aggressive in my position. But think of this--you have a virgin girl who is raped, or just a girl in general. A man can get anywhere up to twenty years for rape. Some people would think that is a hefty punishment, right? He did not kill anyone, yet he will spend half of his life in jail. In history, a man would be castrated for rape in certain countries. That would be seen as a heavy punishment in modern society. But losing a child back then was never really seen as a good thing, however, nowadays, we have legalized the abortion of them. What if the baby was past nine/twelve weeks when she wanted to get it aborted, because she changed her mind? Would it still be justified?
All I really want to say, once again, is that the woman would have broken the law by raping this man, and she should have to deal with whatever punishment a court deems appropriate. Woman who are rape victims are treated, in ideal cases, with a lot of respect regarding them being informed of their attacker's release date from jail, etc. They are allowed to decide if they want an abortion or not. The baby is half of the victims in the case of a male victim, so he, too, should be allowed a say, a definitive say, in what happens to his child. He had no say in it being created, he should have a say in whether or not he wants to raise it, even if the mother wants nothing to do with the baby.
Savannah wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Savannah wrote: "I have been contemplating commenting here, but I know that if I do, many people will disagree with what I have to say. But I will just leave you with this question..."I type all this without malice, might I add, since I do not want anyone to think I am arguing or trying to be aggressive in my position.
Not really necessary to add because as long as you use facts, logic and examples, I would even welcome the argument :D
A man can get anywhere up to twenty years for rape.
I concede that I do not have the knowledge nor the experience of rape cases. Also I'm very fortunate to not have been a victim of sexual harassment. Therefore I will refrain from commenting on what should or should not be an appropriate punishment for the rapist and will give you the benefit of doubt.
Also I believe that no matter how severe the punishment, all the victim would have wanted is to turn back time and wish it had never happened at all.
What if the baby was past nine/twelve weeks when she wanted to get it aborted, because she changed her mind? Would it still be justified?
I assume the "she" referred here is the victim. If so then yes I still believe that as a female victim, she should be given all rights to make any decision she wants.
If "she" is referring to the perpetrator, then I believe that regardless of what she wants, "he" (the victim) should be given a say in it.
All I really want to say, once again, is that the woman would have broken the law by raping this man, and she should have to deal with whatever punishment a court deems appropriate. Woman who are rape victims are treated, in ideal cases, with a lot of respect regarding them being informed of their attacker's release date from jail, etc. They are allowed to decide if they want an abortion or not. The baby is half of the victims in the case of a male victim, so he, too, should be allowed a say, a definitive say, in what happens to his child. He had no say in it being created, he should have a say in whether or not he wants to raise it, even if the mother wants nothing to do with the baby.
Yes I definitely agree with this. Cheers!
I think I addressed both A and B in one of my first comments. Nobody should be forced to remain pregnant against her will. But then she shouldn't be allowed to steal a batch of sperm cells either.Both parties should agree on the pregnancy as far as I'm concerned, (which of course is a conundrum when a man rapes a woman, then disappears without a trace. Supposedly he had no interest after sowing his wild oats.)
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/...This interesting. Only my country is "brave" to write that kinda article.
While I understand that emotions run high on this topic, the reality is that this issue is a place where law & medicine intersects which means that pregnancy must be considered separately from rape. It is, in fact, one of the reasons that abortion bans which contain exemptions for "rape" are fundamentally untenable.When a rape is alleged to have occurred, there are frequently divergences in the statements provided by the individuals involved in the crime - i.e., perpetrators frequently deny culpability. It is incumbent on the criminal process to sort out those discrepancies - to evaluate the evidence and to determine whether or not the case can be proven - in the U.S. at least - beyond a reasonable doubt.
The person who is accused is presumed innocent, which means that it is unlikely that a legal determination that a rape has occurred will even happen within a time frame that would make forcing (or preventing) an abortion possible. Most rape prosecutions take months, as do pregnancies - what would be the process by which a male rape victim would force the female rapist to have an abortion during the first or second trimester of pregnancy? Would there be some sort of judicial oversight for the process? Would this occur before the verdict in the criminal trial when, in the eyes of the law, the rapist isn't yet a rapist?
I think most people would support a determination that an adjudicated male rape victim not be required to pay child support on a child born as a result of the rape. But, in terms of abortion, yes, it is true that abortion is always the decision of the woman who is pregnant because, as a practical matter, it is the woman who is pregnant, not the man. This does not mean that women are treated differently from men in the context of the criminal prosecution. It means that this issue is not included in the legal response to rape at all.
By way of an analogy, imagine that an assault happens, which leaves the victim needing a new kidney, and, by happenstance, the person who committed the assault is the same blood type as the victim. No court would order the defendant to give a kidney to the victim, even with the argument that the fact that the victim needs a new kidney is completely attributable to the actions of the defendant, and even given the medical reality that the defendant could survive perfectly well with only one kidney. The assault victim has no right to the defendant's kidney. The rape victim has no right to the perpetrator's uterus, either to force an abortion and demand that the perpetrator carry a fetus to term.
Jing Wen wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Given the unfortunate recent history of forced sterilization of women in prison, I'm really against making a woman have an abortion against her ..."It's been a while so I wasn't sure which statement of mine you referred to. I have talked about the "risk" abortion vs. carrying to term. A woman by law has the right to decide based on the advice of her doctor whether or not in any case she is willing to take on carrying to term or aborting. But it is rarely fatal for the woman to have an abortion. Biologically females take on more of a physical and psychological burden in the process of carrying offspring. My arguement is that since biology is naturally unbalanced so is the law. Men and women may not ever have perfect equality until men can get pregnant. Until then we can only do the best we can. This may be one case where women are afforded "more rights" than men, depending on how you look at it. I don't like how unfair it is but we can't change the laws of nature.
I didn't know I would now be multiplying all the scenarios, jeez.
Now, in Scenario A, Case 1. Risk of abortion is equal to risk of giving birth. I don't know how this is possible. The risk of giving birth is always higher as even in a developed country, occassionally women do still die giving birth. There is always slightly more risk in carrying it to term anyway and it takes more out of a woman physically and takes longer. But theoretically, for Scen. A, Case 1 It is the woman rapist's choice to decide whether to take on the process of pregnancy, so she should be allowed to abort.
In Scenario B, Case 1, It is still the woman's choice to take on the burden of pregnancy, and since the state cannot force people to take birth control or be sterilized even if they are criminals, she can choose to carry it to term.
In Scenario A,Case 2. Risk of abortion is lower then risk of giving birth. The rapist has the right to an abortion for the same reasons as case 1.
In Scenario B, Case 2, the rapist has the right to take on a high-risk pregnancy if that is her decision. She can be informed of the risks involved in giving birth in her case, but if she is of sound mind and not in a coma or braindead she has the right to choose to take on that risk. If she has to go to the hospital and is temporarily incapacitated and a decision must be made whether or not to save the fetus at risk to the mother's life, then that is when someone else can step in and make a medical decision for her. If she has a parent or spouse they might be consulted.
In Scenario A, Case 3. Risk of abortion is higher then risk of giving birth. I didn't know that could ever be the case unless we're comparing 1920's dirty back-alley coathanger abortions vs. a healthy pregnancy with the best modern healthcare. But we're talking hypothetically, so, for the same reasons as Scen. B, case 2, the rapist in scen. A#3 has the right to have a dangerous abortion if for some reason that's what she wants. If she's that determined to not be pregnant it would be hard to stop her anyway. Again, doctors can inform her of the risks inherent in her choice but it's her choice unless she completely loses her faculties or is comatose (and it is my understanding that a fetus doesn't do well if the mother is comatose early on in the pregnancy, maybe if she became comatose late in the pregnancy there could be an expectation that the child could be born fully functioning but if it was early on the family might have to be called on to decide whether to pull the plug and whether or not the baby could survive would be a moot point if the woman was likely to die soon anyway)
In Scenario B, Case 3, the rapist can still, as always, choose to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth against the wishes of the rape victim.
I still find case 1 and 3 very confusing as I don't know what you mean, I don't know whether they'd be possible. Case 2 is the only thing I can imagine being a real-life situation. Even within that there are a spectrum of cases such as ectopic pregancy where it would be impossible to try and continue the pregnancy without busting your fallopian tube, becoming infertile and possibly hemmoraging to death. But even an average abortion vs. an average pregnancy a pregancy has more of a burden and risk than the vast majority of abortions in developed countries with accessible healthcare.
Sorry I took so long to reply I forgot about this thread for a while
You know, I have some insight into medical ethics and it really can put medical personnel on the spot, and not necessarily in a good way. Technology keeps pushing so fast that our gut reactions don't always keep up. Examples of those are organ donation both before and after death, and euthanasia. I have plenty of opinions in all these cases, because I've thought a lot about life and death, and even when a person is supposed to do one thing, they can still feel strongly against it.I don't care for discussing laws and similar nonsense in this case, because they rarely manage to reflect well a particular need even when their intention is to protect the individual, or they brush broadly over areas where case-by-case thereby becomes impossible.
What we have here is an extreme case and what is asked from us is to decide who is worthy of the status of being protected. Everything that happens after the rape of a male is secondary in a theoretical discussion, and I still think our primary focus should be to protect him. Because as others have concluded, in some places on the planet, male rape isn't even a thing yet in the face of law. So even when we might have to fail him utterly in practice in regards to protecting him from having forced offspring against his will, let's not fail him where we can still improve the situation.
Concerning Scenario A, a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she wants to share her body with a fetus. If justice refuses her an abortion, it would be like imposing a pregnancy on her as a form of penalty for her actions.Scenario B, though, raises a more controversial dilemma. In regards of ethics, the victim of rape SHOULD be protected from the reminder of the traumatic experience. However, in this case scenario this is legally impracticable.
First of all, according to penal law and the international bill of human rights, a surgical procedure cannot be imposed to a criminal as a punishment for their crimes.
Furthermore, forcing a pregnant woman to miscarry is by definition a crime. In other words, justice cannot punish a crime by committing another.
The difference between intended and unintended abortion, is the woman's choice. If she chooses to terminate the pregnancy, it means that she chose to surgically remove the embryonic cells from her body before they are considered an alive human being(in order to be considered human, the baby has to be born alive). But if someone else makes that choice for her, it translates as (in addition to physical injury) terminating what would be the birth of a living person.
Even though the fetus isn't born yet(and legally isn't a human being), the fact that the mother chose to stay pregnant and give birth to that baby creates a legal fiction. The baby is not born yet, but under normal circumstances it will be born alive, hence fictio juris it is already considered alive.
I couldn't help but wonder if the only reason why we examine this particular misuse of the victim's DNA is because in this case the misuse can only be committed by a woman.
What I mean is that, if we weren't talking about semen, but of blood, tissue or organs that the rapist could steal, it wouldn't be a matter of equality. For example, if the criminal stole the victim's kidney in order to use it, the victim wouldn't have a way to retreat his organ after the criminal was arrested.
I think that in Scenario B, rape and theft of the victim's genetic material should be considered not as one crime and the aftermath, but as a slew of crimes.
The criminal should be punished for both, but this particular theft is one of those cases where there is no way to return the stolen property to the rightful owner.
Perhaps justice should try to protect the victim in the form of a compensation and a restraining order(the child a.k.a. the product of the theft should not be allowed anywhere near the victim and his family). Or perhaps the public prosecutor should approach the criminal with a settlement that if she agrees to an abortion she won't be charged with theft.
In conclusion, I would like to underline that this is an extreme scenario where everyone loses and perhaps the biggest victim would be the child itself, so I really hope that the criminal chooses an abortion instead of giving birth to a miserable child.
Dada wrote: "I don't know why people keep referring to Jing Wen's scenarios as "extreme", as if we weren't aware of it already. I would think that any rape, involving any combination of people, is viewed as "ex..."Well said.
Elizabeth wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Given the unfortunate recent history of forced sterilization of women in prison, I'm really against making a woman have an abor...""As people have said before, the person with a uterus biologically takes on more risk in giving birth, and that is their medical decision between them and their doctors."
I use the 3 cases to show you why your whole argument about the "risk" factor is weak.
The perpetrator shouldn't be given the choice priority. It should be either high risk for both Scenario A and B, or low risk for both.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Also, this discussion is based on a hypothetical situation. Any similarities to real life incidents are purely coincidental.
For each party of the situation, there will be 2 denominators which are gender (male or female) and role (rapist or victim). In this situation, the male victim has been raped by a female rapist. From that incident, the female rapist has conceived a child. Now here are two different scenarios.
Scenario A
The male victim who believes in Pro-Life, wishes for the child to be born and custody given to him. However, the female rapist never intended to have the child and is appealing for abortion.
Scenario B
The male victim who was traumatized by the entire incident wishes for the child to be aborted as he has no wish to be responsible for a child nor have a reminder of his traumatic experiences exist. The female rapist however, wishes for the child to be born.
Now please post for both Scenario A and Scenario B what should the final verdict be. Please explain if possible the rational of the verdict you propose. Also, feel free to introduce new Scenarios to better explain your stand.