Question concerning the rights of a male victim who impregnates his perpetrator.

[Machjo]

Should a man who impregnates a woman who sexually coerced or assaulted him be allowed to declare the foetus a human life if he can prove on a balance of probabilities that the mother had impregnated herself while sexually coercing or assaulting him?

When you think about it, he would already be a victim of sexual coercion or assault. Then the fact that the perpetrator became pregnant is simply further victimization. So should the perpetrator be allowed to abort without the victim's consent unless it is medically necessary to do so?

2 yes and 1 no. The pro-choice crowd won't like that stat.

 

[darkbeaver]

nature will rule in the end, what a stupid question.

What will be will be, no you can't have anymore grant money, your profile is ah dubios, you have discovered the perils of WTF.

 

[eh1eh]

nature will rule in the end, what a stupid question.

Ya, it"s stupid but just wait for the righties to ignore this. Reproductive rights, according to the righties, should be the domain of the church and state, one and the same to the righties. So nobody has the right to declare anything except the rightie GAWD of the dominion of the universe.

 

[Machjo]

Ya, it"s stupid but just wait for the righties to ignore this. Reproductive rights, according to the righties, should be the domain of the church and state, one and the same to the righties. So nobody has the right to declare anything except the rightie GAWD of the dominion of the universe.

What does sexual assault have to do with the right? Actually, given how feminists (usually left-leaning) so vociferously oppose sexual assault, you'd think they should be all for this. Why should we not protect the rights of a victim of sexual assault?

So do we defend the right of the perpetrator to escape with impunity?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

What does sexual assault have to do with the right? Actually, given how feminists (usually left-leaning) so vociferously oppose sexual assault, you'd think they should be all for this. Why should we not protect the rights of a victim of sexual assault?

So do we defend the right of the perpetrator to escape with impunity?

So, your whole goal here is to trash women's reproductive rights.

You're not usually this transparent, Machjo. Bad day?

 

[Machjo]

So, your whole goal here is to trash women's reproductive rights.

You're not usually this transparent, Machjo. Bad day?

Only if she commits sexual coercion or assault. If he is a willing participant, all bet are off. But if proved on a balance of probabilities that he was not a willing participant, given that he's already a victim of assault, then of having to deal with a pregnancy caused by the assault, is it fair to then give him no say in what to do about the baby?

If a man rapes a woman and impregnates her, we would all defend her right to choose. So if a woman sexially assaults a man, should he then not have the right to choose given that she had already taken away his right to choose to not have sex and then impregnate her?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Only if she commits sexual coercion or assault. If he is a willing participant, all bet are off. But if proved on a balance of probabilities that he was not a willing participant, given that he's already a victim of assault, then of having to deal with a pregnancy caused by the assault, is it fair to then give him no say in what to do about the baby?

If a man rapes a woman and impregnates her, we would all defend her right to choose. So if a woman sexially assaults a man, should he then not have the right to choose given that she had already taken away his right to choose to not have sex and then impregnate her?

If a woman is pregnant, she has the right to choose. If she's not pregnant, she has the right to choose.

When you get pregnant, your opinion will be worth a sack of dog vomit.

Clear enough?

 

[Machjo]

If she's not pregnant, she has the right to choose.

Say again?! So a man cannot commit sexual assault but a woman can?

 

[darkbeaver]

Ya, it"s stupid but just wait for the righties to ignore this. Reproductive rights, according to the righties, should be the domain of the church and state, one and the same to the righties. So nobody has the right to declare anything except the rightie GAWD of the dominion of the universe.

Yes but, they can easily but bred out of thier mistake, reproductive rights do not exist might always rules. You have to get to that flower first, if you want to ge5t ahead

If you can't reproduce yourself, what are your chances? You must have progeny or you're going nowhere.

I have lots of grand children, they're all special.

When I rule this planet it will be the best place for babies ever.

Your future is in babys stupid, go ahead argue.

This countrty needs to produce more Canadians, perhaps we could gfrow them on the wasteland of western Canada.

Huge herds of buffalo billions of Canadians why do you hesitate?

 

[gerryh]

Only if she commits sexual coercion or assault. If he is a willing participant, all bet are off. But if proved on a balance of probabilities that he was not a willing participant, given that he's already a victim of assault, then of having to deal with a pregnancy caused by the assault, is it fair to then give him no say in what to do about the baby?

If a man rapes a woman and impregnates her, we would all defend her right to choose. So if a woman sexially assaults a man, should he then not have the right to choose given that she had already taken away his right to choose to not have sex and then impregnate her?

What difference does it make under what circumstances the baby was conceived? If it is "life" at conception when he is sexually assaulted, then why is it not "life" at conception any other time?

 

[darkbeaver]

Life rules, all babies are pure.

 

[Machjo]

What difference does it make under what circumstances the baby was conceived? If it is "life" at conception when he is sexually assaulted, then why is it not "life" at conception any other time?

I agree with you. However, even if a person should disagree with us on this point, they might agree that at least a woman who sexually coerces or assaults a man forfeits that right without the victim's consent.

 

[darkbeaver]

That can't happ[en to a ,man./

 

[Machjo]

That can't happ[en to a ,man./

What? Female sexual assault of a man?

Oh yes it can. Check the stats!

 

[darkbeaver]

STATS? These people wereovercome by fem power, why can't you admit your insigniufiganbcs?

 

[Machjo]

STATS? These people wereovercome by fem power, why can't you admit your insigniufiganbcs?

Are you drunk?

Why Are so Many Women Raping Boys? Research into female perpetrated sexual violence - Canadian Association for Equality

So yes, female rape of men is far more common than people might realise.

Now of course I'm aware that just as proving man-on-woman sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt is extremely difficult, the same would apply in reverse, so in many cases the victim would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she raped him and so could not win a criminal case in most situations.

But in the matter of proving sexual assault in a balance of probabilities, that is easier. Since we would not be talking about punishing the mother but simply protecting the rights of the father, then balance if probabilities should be more than enough for that.

 

[gerryh]

I agree with you. However, even if a person should disagree with us on this point, they might agree that at least a woman who sexually coerces or assaults a man forfeits that right without the victim's consent.

No, we don't "agree". You put the op up as if there is or should be a difference. There is no difference.

 

[Machjo]

No, we don't "agree". You put the op up as if there is or should be a difference. There is no difference.

I believe human life begins at conception. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you agree with that at least.

Now, if it is not politically feasible to outlaw medically unnecessary abortions, I imagine you would agree to at least make abortion on the parent-victim if sexual coercion, or do you disagree with that?

 

[gerryh]

I believe human life begins at conception. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you agree with that at least.

Now, if it is not politically feasible to outlaw medically unnecessary abortions, I imagine you would agree to at least make abortion on the parent-victim if sexual coercion, or do you disagree with that?

politically feasible? That's what a human life is to you?

 

[Machjo]

politically feasible? That's what a human life is to you?

No. That is what reality is to me. You try to get a political party campaign on banning all medically unnecessary abortions in Canada and form a majority government in our present political climate. Even what I am proposing in the OP would be a tough sell, but maybe doable.