Quote: Originally Posted by Remington1
First, coerced cannot not be part of this question. Secondly, male sexual assault resulting in the woman rapist getting pregnant is so rare that is does not warrant the question, but I would say if the 'rapist woman' should get pregnant, then it's still her body, her choice. I would however, not think the man, whose a rape victim would want any of his rapist life involved with his !! Ask the thousands of women who've been victims of rape and gotten pregnant if they want the rapist part of their baby's life, I'm pretty sure the answer is close to a 100% NO.
Firstly, why shouldn't coercion be part of the question. Drugging him, threatening him, manipulating him psychologically, etc. all constitute coercion, no?
Secondly, some women have chosen to keep the rapist's baby but have wanted to keep him out of their lives, true.
So why would a male victim be any different whereby he would want the baby but have the mother kept out of their lives? He did not choose to have sex (or, if threatened with violence or suicide, or other traumatic experience, or was drugged with alcohol or another date rape drug, it is coerced consent at best), then he did not choose to risk her pregnancy. Now that she is pregnant, given that she criminally forced him into the predicament, should he then not have the choice to keep the baby?
One thing I might concede to for the purpose of political expediency is if he knowingly chose to consume the alcohol or another drug that could have made it easier for her to coerce his consent. But if for example, she diluted small amounts of alcohol into an otherwise non-alcoholic drink and gradually increased the amount until she could coerce him into choosing to consume more, etc. then that is still a criminal act since he did not know that the initial glass contained alcohol for example. And even that is being generous given that in some jurisdictions, simply having sex with a drunk person can already constitute sexual assault. And some jurisdictions make no legal distinction between assault and other forms of coercion, and rightfully so.
Again, that he's straight or that the woman happend to be sexually attractive has f all to do with it. A straight man can choose to not have sex with a sexually attractive woman for all kinds of reasons, and even the most sexually attractive woman has no legal right to sexually assault the most heterosexual man around.
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh
Once again you throw your ignorance out there for everyone to see.
Who is not ignorant to one degree or another? Why don't you try to educate him?