Should a male victim be able to legally declare his foetus a human lif

[Machjo]

Should a woman sexually coerce or assault a man and impregnate herself in the process, should he be allowed, if he can prove on a balance of probabilities that she did sexually coerce or assault him, to declare the foetus a human life as of conseption so as to prevent the perpetrator from aborting or threatening to abort unless it's medically necessary?

When we think about it, the victim has already been victimized through sexual assault, and again by the knowledge that the perpetrator is now carrying his child. Should the perpetrator be allowed to victimize him yet again by aborting?

One might argue the right to one's body, but does not one forfeit certain rights when he commits a criminal offence?

Your thoughts?

[Moonlight Graham]

Here's another question: should he have to pay child support if the baby is birthed?

[Machjo]

Here's another question: should he have to pay child support if the baby is birthed?

I guess that would depend. Obviously even a criminal ought to enjoy certain rights and being proved guilty of a crime does not give anyone the right to then abuse that criminal.

One just balance might be the following between the rights of the perpetrator and those of the victim might be the following:

The male victim can declare the foetus a human life starting at conception on the condition that he accepts legal custody over it except in specific circumstances, but can sue the mother for child support. One specific circumstance might be if he himself is too young. In that case, he might still have the right to declare the foetus a human life at conception, his parents or the state can take custody until he is old enough, and then he gets first right to custody once he reaches maturity.

My idea could be flawed, but it's a start. Maybe yo have a better idea?

[BC_chick]

No, I don't think a woman should ever be forced to have an abortion against her will, even if the fetus is conceived through a criminal act perpetrated by her.

[Guest]

Should a woman sexually coerce or assault a man and impregnate herself in the process, should he be allowed, if he can prove on a balance of probabilities that she did sexually coerce or assault him, to declare the foetus a human life as of conseption so as to prevent the perpetrator from aborting or threatening to abort unless it's medically necessary?

When we think about it, the victim has already been victimized through sexual assault, and again by the knowledge that the perpetrator is now carrying his child. Should the perpetrator be allowed to victimize him yet again by aborting?

One might argue the right to one's body, but does not one forfeit certain rights when he commits a criminal offence?

Your thoughts?

Here's another question: should he have to pay child support if the baby is birthed?

No, and No.

[Machjo]

No, I don't think a woman should ever be forced to have an abortion against her will, even if the fetus is conceived through a criminal act perpetrated by her.

My question was the opposite: should the victim be allowed to legally declare the foetus a human life from conception?

[Machjo]

No, and No.

Can you elaborate?

Should the victim not enjoy any rights?

[Guest]

Can you elaborate?

Should the victim not enjoy any rights?

Anyone convicted of sexual assault should go to jail. That's what a victim gets. Their rapist locked up. In some cases. Not all.

That said, I'm pro choice, and I could not countenance forcing a woman to carry a child to term if she did not want to.

Given the circumstances, if she did want to, and he wanted no part of it, he should be allowed to play no part, financial or otherwise, in the upbringing of the child.

[Machjo]

Anyone convicted of sexual assault should go to jail. That's what a victim gets. Their rapist locked up. In some cases. Not all.

That said, I'm pro choice, and I could not countenance forcing a woman to carry a child to term if she did not want to.

Given the circumstances, if she did want to, and he wanted no part of it, he should be allowed to play no part, financial or otherwise, in the upbringing of the child.

But what if he wants the child but she doesn't? Why does the perpetrator and not the victim get to choose?

I understand a woman's right to do what she wants with her body normally. But here we're talking if her getting pregnant while sexually assaulting h and so without his consent. With that, should the victim not be able to reclaim his right to the foetus that is his child with the mother forfeiting all rights to that foetus for having taken it without the father's consent?

[Guest]

But what if he wants the child but she doesn't? Why does the perpetrator and not the victim get to choose?

I understand a woman's right to do what she wants with her body normally. But here we're talking if her getting pregnant while sexually assaulting h and so without his consent. With that, should the victim not be able to reclaim his right to the foetus that is his child with the mother forfeiting all rights to that foetus for having taken it without the father's consent?

No. It doesn't mattter in the great scheme of all this, but as he was the one assaulted one can assume it wasn't a child he planned.

You're suggesting that if a couple plan, or accidentally start a pregnancy, the woman can unilaterally decide to end it, but not if the man were coerced or assaulted. I don't see it, myself.

[Machjo]

No. It doesn't mattter in the great scheme of all this, but as he was the one assaulted one can assume it wasn't a child he planned.

You're suggesting that if a couple plan, or accidentally start a pregnancy, the woman can unilaterally decide to end it, but not if the man were coerced or assaulted. I don't see it, myself.

If they plan or accidentally start a pregnancy, he is a willing participant. If he is coerced or assaulted, he isn't. That's the difference. In other words, he never chose to put himself in the position of getting a woman pregnant who might then want to abort. Given he never wanted to have sex in the first place, let alone get her pregnant and so have no say in either of those two matters, should we now refuse him a voice in yet the third matter of abortion?

[Guest]

If they plan or accidentally start a pregnancy, he is a willing participant. If he is coerced or assaulted, he isn't. That's the difference. In other words, he never chose to put himself in the position of getting a woman pregnant who might then want to abort. Given he never wanted to have sex in the first place, let alone get her pregnant and so have no say in either of those two matters, should we now refuse him a voice in yet the third matter of abortion?

I'm afraid so...

[Bryan]

I understand a woman's right to do what she wants with her body normally.

That's the problem with that line of thinking. If she's pregnant, then by definition, we are not only talking about HER body. There are two people to consider. "Her body, her choice" is simply irrational, and it makes a mockery of the very idea of human rights. You can't have any rights at all if you don't first have the right to be alive.

[Machjo]

Then another question. Should she choose to keep the baby, should he have the right to claim sole custody and make her pay child support if that is what he wants?

[Guest]

Then another question. Should she choose to keep the baby, should he have the right to claim sole custody and make her pay child support if that is what he wants?

He would have the right to claim whatever he wants. The courts would decide.

[Machjo]

That's the problem with that line of thinking. If she's pregnant, then by definition, we are not only talking about HER body. There are two people to consider. "Her body, her choice" is simply irrational, and it makes a mockery of the very idea of human rights. You can't have any rights at all if you don't first have the right to be alive.

True.

And even if we did grant the mother's right to abort under normal circumstances, how could we countenance it in the case of sexual assault without the consent if the victim without her victimising the victim yet again?

[?Impact]

The kid will graduate from university before the case ever hits the courts.

[Smoke]

The kid will graduate from university before the case ever hits the courts.

With parents like that he would probably be a drug addicted gang banger before the case ever hit the courts.

[overthere]

Perhaps the OP could explain his premise more fully? Coercion and sexual assault are the same thing under the law, and in real life.

How exactly does a woman force a man to intercourse and ejaculation? How would she get to first base by forcing him to get and maintain an erection against his will? Fear, lack of interest and too much beer are all powerful erection deterrents. Coercion and physical assault would invoke two of those three deterrents. Of course, it does not work the other way with women. Women are frequently unwilling victims of sex, their physiology being what is is.....

[BC_chick]

My question was the opposite: should the victim be allowed to legally declare the foetus a human life from conception?

Sorry, I was rushed as I read your post yesterday.

In theory, I guess I agree with it, in fact, in theory I think every man should have some kind of right to a fetus carrying his DNA. However, I don't see how that it could be implemented short of restraining a woman against her will for 9 months and making her give birth; an act which I would consider to be a highly cruel and unusual punishment.

So no, as much as I agree with the notion that life begins at conception and I believe we are generally way too frivolous about abortions, I think ultimately it's a woman's choice to carry a baby to term.

Edited October 6, 2016 by BC_chick

[Machjo]

Perhaps the OP could explain his premise more fully? Coercion and sexual assault are the same thing under the law, and in real life.

How exactly does a woman force a man to intercourse and ejaculation? How would she get to first base by forcing him to get and maintain an erection against his will? Fear, lack of interest and too much beer are all powerful erection deterrents. Coercion and physical assault would invoke two of those three deterrents. Of course, it does not work the other way with women. Women are frequently unwilling victims of sex, their physiology being what is is.....

If you check the stats, female sexual assault if makes is more common than many realise.

Furthermore, anyone with a penis knows it has a mind if its own. Women do get orgasms when raped in some cases and that makes it worse mentally since it can contribute to feelings of guilt even though it was a natural bodily response.

The same applies to a man. If a man sees a naked woman straddling him, he probably will get erect whether he wants to or not, and it might not take much stroking to reach orgasm.

[Machjo]

Sorry, I was rushed as I read your post yesterday.

In theory, I guess I agree with it, in fact, in theory I think every man should have some kind of right to a fetus carrying his DNA. However, I don't see how that it could be implemented short of restraining a woman against her will for 9 months and making her give birth; an act which I would consider to be a highly cruel and unusual punishment.

So no, as much as I agree with the notion that life begins at conception and I believe we are generally way too frivolous about abortions, I think ultimately it's a woman's choice to carry a baby to term.

After extra thought, I agree.

[overthere]

If you check the stats, female sexual assault if makes is more common than many realise.

Really. Then you won't have any problem linking to the stats that demonstrate forced and forcible sex with a man that results in pregnancy.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think that forced abortions in cases where men are raped are justified (provided the rape victim wants to terminate the pregnancy).

You shouldn't reward rapists with a child.

[-1=e^ipi]

I also think that repeat male rapists should be castrated.

If someone is a criminal that goes around raping people, they should lose their 'right to control their own bodies' or whatever.

Edited October 6, 2016 by -1=e^ipi