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


View Poll Results: Should a male victim be able to declare a foetus a human life starting at conseption?
Yes. 4 40.00%
No. 5 50.00%
Other answer. 1 10.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

Machjo
-1
#1
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
+1
#2  Top Rated Post
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
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

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
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by eh1ehView Post

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
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

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
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

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
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

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
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

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
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by eh1ehView Post

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
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

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
#11
Life rules, all babies are pure.
 
Machjo
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

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
#13
That can't happ[en to a ,man./
 
Machjo
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

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

What? Female sexual assault of a man?

Oh yes it can. Check the stats!
 
darkbeaver
#15
STATS? These people wereovercome by fem power, why can't you admit your insigniufiganbcs?
 
Machjo
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

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
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

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
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

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
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

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
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

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.
 
Serryah
#21
Actually an interesting question.

IF the man in question was assaulted and IF he had no knowledge of conception then what the woman does... he won't know about.

But.

If he DOES know she conceived and it can be proven he's the father and IF the man wants to have the chance to keep the child and raise it...

Good question. I'm pro-choice and yet in this situation, TBH I'm not sure what the answer is. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child is wrong, but in this situation, what about the right of the victim? Personally I do believe this hypothetical father should have a right to say whether he wants a child from this kind of situation or not, at least.
 
Blackleaf
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

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?

We're talking about the woman being the perpetrator of a sexual assault here, not the man.

The question being asked is: SHOULD a mother have the right to abort a child without the father's consent if that child came about due to her sexually assaulting the man?

My answer is: NO.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

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.

The stats are interesting in that link:

43% of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95% said a female acquaintance was the aggressor.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

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.

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING! There you have it, folks! Machjo is concerned with taking away women's rights. End of.
 
Machjo
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING! There you have it, folks! Machjo is concerned with taking away women's rights. End of.

I never denied I'm pro-life. But will you judge the question on an as hominem attack against me because you disagree with my stance on the right of the fietus in general terms or will you judge the question on its own terms independently of me.

If that not politically feasible, I could even agree to caveats.

For example, he can declare the foetus a human life starting at conception on the condition that he claims sole custody of the child (or at least once the victim reaches the age of maturity if he hasn't already), but that he can sue the perpetrator for child support.

We might even throw in that the parents of the victim can declare the foetus a human life starting at conception too if the victim is under-age.

And again, the victim still needs to prove on a balance of probabilities that the woman did sexually coerce him.

I know cases of men later fighting for visiting rights to a child they conceived while raping a woman. For both men and women victims, I would agree that if he can prove on a balance of probabilities that the other parent had sexually assaulted him and they were not married at the time of the assault, then the victim can deny visiting rights while still suing for child support.

If the sexual assault occurred within a marriage, then beyond a reasonable doubt. Within a marriage, we'd expect a couple to have sex and so if immediately after sex the woman goes to the police with 'proof' of rape because she plans on divorcing him and keep the child, it could be tough.

Yet even if they're not married, she could rape him and claim the opposite, so I'm still in two minds about it.

I guess the child should still have the right to know about the other parent even if that parent is convicted of rape. It's still his parent. But denying visiting rights or child support on a balance of probabilities I'm less certain about. For abortion though, since it is permanent, then I agree with balance of probabilities.
Last edited by Machjo; Oct 6th, 2016 at 06:39 AM..
 
Tecumsehsbones
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I never denied I'm pro-life. But will you judge the question on an as hominem attack against me because you disagree with my stance on the right of the fietus in general terms or will you judge the question on its own terms independently of me.

The motive of the questioner is relevant when the questioner is trying to change the status quo. In your case, the motive is to eliminate abortion rights, however possible, using any tool at hand.

Here's my compromise. I'm perfectly willing to give "fathers" veto rights over abortions. And if the women still want the abortion, it is to be performed in a manner that keeps the embryo alive. The embryo is then inserted into the "father's" abdominal cavity, and we let nature take its course. Surely if the almighty Gawd loves li'l Tater so much, he can work a minor miracle, right?
 
Machjo
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

The motive of the questioner is relevant when the questioner is trying to change the status quo. In your case, the motive is to eliminate abortion rights, however possible, using any tool at hand.

Here's my compromise. I'm perfectly willing to give "fathers" veto rights over abortions. And if the women still want the abortion, it is to be performed in a manner that keeps the embryo alive. The embryo is then inserted into the "father's" abdominal cavity, and we let nature take its course. Surely if the almighty Gawd loves li'l Tater so much, he can work a minor miracle, right?

I agree even convicts have rights, but why treat them with kiddie gloves just because it's a woman?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#27
As it happens, the law already has standards for the treatment of parental rights. You are completely ignorant of those standards, which raises a suspicion that you are uninterested in parental rights (or possibly just really lazy). Ergo, there is reason to believe that your interest is actually something other than parental rights.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I agree even convicts have rights, but why treat them with kiddie gloves just because it's a woman?

I never said convicts have rights, so your "agreement" presumes I said something I did not say.

Ergo, you are a liar.

Have a real nice day now, hear?
 
Machjo
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

We're talking about the woman being the perpetrator of a sexual assault here, not the man.

The question being asked is: SHOULD a mother have the right to abort a child without the father's consent if that child came about due to her sexually assaulting the man?

My answer is: NO.



The stats are interesting in that link:

43% of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95% said a female acquaintance was the aggressor.

And there is no requirement that the woman be physically unattractive or that the man not be straight.

Firstly, there is statutory rape. Secondly, maybe he didn't want sex outside of marriage.

Thirdly, maybe he didn't know her well enough and so wanted to protect himself from unwanted STI's or pregnancy (though might still want to keep the child now that what is done is done).

Fourthly, as pretty as she was, her character was a turn off.

As for the woman:

1. She might be physically stronger.

2. He might be incapacitated somehow.

3. He might fear that if he fights her off too aggressively that he could injure her and so face criminal charges for that.

4. However physically strong he might be, inasmuch as he doesn't the sex, his personality might prevent him from inflicting potential injury on her since he still does not want to injure her and so will limit his options for fighting her off in a safe manner for her.

5. He might not cry out for help out of shame.

6. Even irgasm does not prove consent. The body has a mind of its own.

6. Coerced' concentrated is still sexual assault such as if she tries purposely to arouse him against his will.

All of the above apply to female victims tok of course.

Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

As it happens, the law already has standards for the treatment of parental rights. You are completely ignorant of those standards, which raises a suspicion that you are uninterested in parental rights (or possibly just really lazy). Ergo, there is reason to believe that your interest is actually something other than parental rights.


I never said convicts have rights, so your "agreement" presumes I said something I did not say.

Ergo, you are a liar.

Have a real nice day now, hear?

Do those standards include the right of a victim to the foetus?

As for visiting rights, I know many US states can deny if if proved convincingly that the parent raped the other parent but that that too can be difficult to prove especially if the assault was reported only much later.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#29
You've found the perfect partner for your legal analysis there, Jo.
 
Cannuck
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post


I never said convicts have rights, so your "agreement" presumes I said something I did not say.

Why is it wrong to take away a woman's right to choose if she has committed a crime? why is that right different than other rights taken from convicts?
 
no new posts