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
#31
https://dailynewsmobile.wordpress.co...d-an-abortion/

Here's an actual case I found online.

Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View 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.

From what I'd read recently, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the women sexual predators had been sexually, physically, or emotionally abused themselves. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the male victims go on to watch porn, pay for sex, commit sexual assaults or engage in other sexual deviancies themselves.

And so the cycle of violence continues.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

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?

Because the deprivation of convicts' rights is (or should be) only such deprivation as is consistent with their punishment. And we dealt with that in a case called Eisenstadt, where the court held that a state may not make pregnancy a punishment.

That you would seriously propose that pregnancy should be a punishment (which is what you are proposing, make no mistake) reflects a hatred of women so deep and twisted that one must question whether you are a danger to women.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

https://dailynewsmobile.wordpress.co...d-an-abortion/

Here's an actual case I found online.



From what I'd read recently, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the women sexual predators had been sexually, physically, or emotionally abused themselves. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the male victims go on to watch porn, pay for sex, commit sexual assaults or engage in other sexual deviancies themselves.

And so the cycle of violence continues.

But if we force them to bear the children, that'll help a lot!
 
Machjo
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Because the deprivation of convicts' rights is (or should be) only such deprivation as is consistent with their punishment. And we dealt with that in a case called Eisenstadt, where the court held that a state may not make pregnancy a punishment.

That you would seriously propose that pregnancy should be a punishment (which is what you are proposing, make no mistake) reflects a hatred of women so deep and twisted that one must question whether you are a danger to women.


But if we force them to bear the children, that'll help a lot!

No. Imprisonment is the punishment if proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Pregnancy is just a natural consequence of her actions, nothing to do with any personal hatred against her.

She must carry the baby for nine months as a consequence if her actions. He must carry the sexual assault for life through no fault of his own.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

No. Imprisonment is the punishment if proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Pregnancy is just a natural consequence of her actions, nothing to do with any personal hatred against her.

She must carry the baby for nine months as a consequence if her actions. He must carry the sexual assault for life through no fault of his own.

That they let a person as deranged as you vote is perhaps the most eloquent condemnation of democracy.
 
Machjo
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Because the deprivation of convicts' rights is (or should be) only such deprivation as is consistent with their punishment. And we dealt with that in a case called Eisenstadt, where the court held that a state may not make pregnancy a punishment.

That you would seriously propose that pregnancy should be a punishment (which is what you are proposing, make no mistake) reflects a hatred of women so deep and twisted that one must question whether you are a danger to women.


But if we force them to bear the children, that'll help a lot!

Not us. The victim.

In this case it's not a matter of punishment but of the rights of the victim.

Heck, maybe even exchange that for imprisonment.

And yes, statistics show that sexual predators are often so as a result of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse as children or later. There is a cause and effect there and so we can be sympathetic. But that does not excuse the assault.

As an example, a pedophiles is statistically probably a victim himself. But still, it is our responsibility to make help available and the pedophiles to seek help. We can sympathize with his condition, but we can't excuse his actions. I would never judge a non,-criminal pedophiles, but still expect him to seek help before he hurts someone.

The same applies here. I can sympathize with a person, man or woman, who feels compelled to watch porn, pay for or sell sex for sexual gratification, commit sexual assault or commit other such deviant acts. I remember reading one statistic that showed that most men who pay for sex have often suffered some form of abuse as children.

However, feeling a compulsion to act and to act are two different things. If he feels such a compulsion, it's his obligation to seek help, not ours to permit and excuse his actions.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

That they let a person as deranged as you vote is perhaps the most eloquent condemnation of democracy.

Ad hominem.

By the way, since I'm anonymous on this board, I am a man who had suffered sexual coercion in a severely emotionally abusive relationship with a woman many years ago. She'd even threatened suicide once with a knife pointed at her chest when I wanted to break the relationship up.

Ironically, she is the one who eventually broke the relationship off once I had become suicidal myself. I do know she had suffered trauma herself before having met me, and that might have played a role in that. It becomes clear how trans-generational trauma can occur.

In my case, I'd already suffered trauma before having even met her. I'll spare the details. But yes there was an emotional vulnerability on both sides. Birds if a feather I suppose.

In my case, she never got pregnant, and of course each case is different.

But in cases where a woman clearly assaults a man sexually, he is not emotionally dependent or similarly vulnerable, he is aware that that is legally an assault and can prove it and reports it right away, she becomes pregnant, and he wants to keep the baby, he should have that right.

From my personal experience, I'm well aware of how emotionally violently a woman can abuse a man or coerce him into sex under the right conditions.
 
Cannuck
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

That you would seriously propose that pregnancy should be a punishment (which is what you are proposing, make no mistake) reflects a hatred of women so deep and twisted that one must question whether you are a danger to women.

Bwahahaha...I haven't proposed anything. I just asked a question. Before you get your knickers more twisted than a white supremacist at a Trump rally, I am not only pro choice (I know that fact is irrelevant but it seems to matter to you) but I think this notion is ludicrous anyway because the child would be aborted long before the woman would be convicted of a crime. The only way it could ever work is if we allowed punitive action against those that are merely accused of criminal acts (which is something I vehemently opposed)
 
Machjo
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Bwahahaha...I haven't proposed anything. I just asked a question. Before you get your knickers more twisted than a white supremacist at a Trump rally, I am not only pro choice (I know that fact is irrelevant but it seems to matter to you) but I think this notion is ludicrous anyway because the child would be aborted long before the woman would be convicted of a crime. The only way it could ever work is if we allowed punitive action against those that are merely accused of criminal acts (which is something I vehemently opposed)

If you read the link above, the woman was in prison, so could be effectively prevented from having an abortion since the prison would need to grant it. I don't know how the case ended but the article suggested she's probably win and so be able to abort. It appeared to have been written before a verdict was made.

But that the man git a lawyer to try to prevent her still made an interesting case.
 
Cannuck
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

If you read the link above, the woman was in prison, so could be effectively prevented from having an abortion since the prison would need to grant it. I don't know how the case ended but the article suggested she's probably win and so be able to abort. It appeared to have been written before a verdict was made.

But that the man git a lawyer to try to prevent her still made an interesting case.

Whether she is in prison or not is irrelevant.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Bwahahaha...I haven't proposed anything. I just asked a question. Before you get your knickers more twisted than a white supremacist at a Trump rally, I am not only pro choice (I know that fact is irrelevant but it seems to matter to you) but I think this notion is ludicrous anyway because the child would be aborted long before the woman would be convicted of a crime. The only way it could ever work is if we allowed punitive action against those that are merely accused of criminal acts (which is something I vehemently opposed)

That's fair. I was kinda cranked up by Machjo's latest not very well veiled attack on women. So, withdrawn with apologies.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Not us. The victim.

In this case it's not a matter of punishment but of the rights of the victim.

Heck, maybe even exchange that for imprisonment.

And yes, statistics show that sexual predators are often so as a result of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse as children or later. There is a cause and effect there and so we can be sympathetic. But that does not excuse the assault.

As an example, a pedophiles is statistically probably a victim himself. But still, it is our responsibility to make help available and the pedophiles to seek help. We can sympathize with his condition, but we can't excuse his actions. I would never judge a non,-criminal pedophiles, but still expect him to seek help before he hurts someone.

The same applies here. I can sympathize with a person, man or woman, who feels compelled to watch porn, pay for or sell sex for sexual gratification, commit sexual assault or commit other such deviant acts. I remember reading one statistic that showed that most men who pay for sex have often suffered some form of abuse as children.

However, feeling a compulsion to act and to act are two different things. If he feels such a compulsion, it's his obligation to seek help, not ours to permit and excuse his actions.



Ad hominem.

By the way, since I'm anonymous on this board, I am a man who had suffered sexual coercion in a severely emotionally abusive relationship with a woman many years ago. She'd even threatened suicide once with a knife pointed at her chest when I wanted to break the relationship up.

Ironically, she is the one who eventually broke the relationship off once I had become suicidal myself. I do know she had suffered trauma herself before having met me, and that might have played a role in that. It becomes clear how trans-generational trauma can occur.

In my case, I'd already suffered trauma before having even met her. I'll spare the details. But yes there was an emotional vulnerability on both sides. Birds if a feather I suppose.

In my case, she never got pregnant, and of course each case is different.

But in cases where a woman clearly assaults a man sexually, he is not emotionally dependent or similarly vulnerable, he is aware that that is legally an assault and can prove it and reports it right away, she becomes pregnant, and he wants to keep the baby, he should have that right.

From my personal experience, I'm well aware of how emotionally violently a woman can abuse a man or coerce him into sex under the right conditions.

Y'know, you woman haters really need to get your thoughts straight. Sex, whether consensual, forced, coerced, conned, whatever, and reproduction are two different things, with different legal stati, and different rules and standards.

Your attempt to conflate them is just another thinly veiled attempt to reduce women to breeding cows and domestic slaves.
 
Kreskin
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

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.

Are you suggesting that he should be able to force her to have an abortion?
 
Machjo
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

That's fair. I was kinda cranked up by Machjo's latest not very well veiled attack on women. So, withdrawn with apologies.

So you're defending a rapist?

I agree that in many cases it would be too late to stop her unless the victim reports it immediately and she delays the abortion long enough to be arrested first.

A judge might even refuse the victim's request right away unless he concludes at the start based on the evidence available that the case could be quick enough. In other words, the evidence so overwhelming the perpetrator would not even contest it.

In such cases, why defend the perpetrator?
 
Cannuck
#42
Alleged rapist and yes I will defend the rights of the accused
 
Machjo
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

Are you suggesting that he should be able to force her to have an abortion?

Yeah, I know, you could argue the double edged sword. If the victim can prevent the perpetrator from having an abortion, should he then not be allowed to force the perpetrator to have an abortion too?

Personally, I was thinking of granting the victim the right only to prevent the perpetrator from getting an abortion, not force her to have one.

If we consider the rights of the child too, then if the victim wants the perp to abort but the perp wants to keep it, I'd say the perp should be allowed to keep it but then the victim is freed from all child support.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

That's fair. I was kinda cranked up by Machjo's latest not very well veiled attack on women. So, withdrawn with apologies.


Y'know, you woman haters really need to get your thoughts straight. Sex, whether consensual, forced, coerced, conned, whatever, and reproduction are two different things, with different legal stati, and different rules and standards.

Your attempt to conflate them is just another thinly veiled attempt to reduce women to breeding cows and domestic slaves.

Wait a minute. Sex and reproduction aren't related? What? A woman eats curry at a restaurant and the curry will impregnate her?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

So you're defending a rapist?

I agree that in many cases it would be too late to stop her unless the victim reports it immediately and she delays the abortion long enough to be arrested first.

A judge might even refuse the victim's request right away unless he concludes at the start based on the evidence available that the case could be quick enough. In other words, the evidence so overwhelming the perpetrator would not even contest it.

In such cases, why defend the perpetrator?

I'll defend anybody who can pay my fees.

I'll even do a freebie when the accuser is a whiny little men's-rights candyapple.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Yeah, I know, you could argue the double edged sword. If the victim can prevent the perpetrator from having an abortion, should he then not be allowed to force the perpetrator to have an abortion too?

Personally, I was thinking of granting the victim the right only to prevent the perpetrator from getting an abortion, not force her to have one.

If we consider the rights of the child too, then if the victim wants the perp to abort but the perp wants to keep it, I'd say the perp should be allowed to keep it but then the victim is freed from all child support.



Wait a minute. Sex and reproduction aren't related? What? A woman eats curry at a restaurant and the curry will impregnate her?

Didn't say they weren't related. Your second lying attempt to put words in my mouth, candy.
 
Machjo
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Alleged rapist and yes I will defend the rights of the accused

So if she is only days pregnant, the evidence against her is already overwhelming, and she effectively pleads no contest (rare since rape usually is very difficult to prove, but if) and the judge can rule very quickly as a result, she still ought to have the right to victimize the victim yet a third time?
 
Kreskin
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Yeah, I know, you could argue the double edged sword. If the victim can prevent the perpetrator from having an abortion, should he then not be allowed to force the perpetrator to have an abortion too?

Personally, I was thinking of granting the victim the right only to prevent the perpetrator from getting an abortion, not force her to have one.

If we consider the rights of the child too, then if the victim wants the perp to abort but the perp wants to keep it, I'd say the perp should be allowed to keep it but then the victim is freed from all child support.



Wait a minute. Sex and reproduction aren't related? What? A woman eats curry at a restaurant and the curry will impregnate her?

Is this some form of reproductive Sharia Law? Eye for an eye.. reproductive violation for a reproductive violation?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

Is this some form of reproductive Sharia Law?

In its treatment of women, yes.
 
Machjo
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I'll defend anybody who can pay my fees.

I'll even do a freebie when the accuser is a whiny little men's-rights candyapple.


Didn't say they weren't related. Your second lying attempt to put words in my mouth, candy.

So defending victims' rights is now a misogynistic attack against women's rights?

Good to know.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

So defending victims' rights is now a misogynistic attack against women's rights?

Good to know.

In your case, yes. Consistent with past behavior.
 
Cannuck
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

So if she is only days pregnant, the evidence against her is already overwhelming, and she effectively pleads no contest (rare since rape usually is very difficult to prove, but if) and the judge can rule very quickly as a result, she still ought to have the right to victimize the victim yet a third time?

Well, in that case, hang the skank
 
Machjo
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

Is this some form of reproductive Sharia Law? Eye for an eye.. reproductive violation for a reproductive violation?

No. If a man raoes a woman, and she wants to keep the baby, she has that right, no? In fact, she gets to decide either way.

If a woman rapes a man, I'm proposing he enjoy half that right (i.e. he can prevent her from aborting but not force her to abort) on the condition that he accept custody (or that he agrees to accept is as soon as he reaches the age of maturity). I also propose that he can sue her for child support. She chose to have sex and si risk pregnancy. He had no say in that matter. So now the freedom to choose is thrown in his court because she raped him.

It's a matter of accepting responsibility for one's actions.

If a woman is raped and jeeps the baby, she too should be allowed to sue the man for child support and deny him visiting rights as long as she can prove on a balance of probabilities that he is guilty if raoe. Difficult to prove yes, but if provable, I can agree with that. It's not about men IR women but about victim and perp.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Well, in that case, hang the skank

Capital punishment if a pregnant woman for sexual assault?

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

In your case, yes. Consistent with past behavior.

So arguing that a woman who rapes a man has to accept some responsibility is misogyny?

One concern would be if the child turns out to not be the victim's.

This would mean that unless the mother IR biological father accepts the baby, the victim would be obligated to accept it or give it up for adoption. So the victim would need to be aware of his own responsibilities if he exercises that right.
 
Cannuck
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Capital punishment if a pregnant woman for sexual assault?

I suppose that is a little drastic. We could cut off her clit and shame her on Facebook
 
Machjo
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I suppose that is a little drastic. We could cut off her clit and shame her on Facebook

Actually, I oppose shaming a person for its own sake. Even a rapist has a right to dignity.

The issue though is not about punishing the rapist, but protecting the rights if the victim.
 
Cannuck
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Actually, I oppose shaming a person for its own sake. Even a rapist has a right to dignity.

The issue though is not about punishing the rapist, but protecting the rights if the victim.

Alleged rapist
 
Machjo
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Alleged rapist

I agree she could abort before anything is proved.

But in the hypothetical scenario that she doesn't believe she is pregnant but he takes legal action right away as a precaution, in the very rare case that he is lucky, the Crown might find her guilty of sexual assault around the time she realises that she is pregnant and he already has a court order that takes effect the moment she is found guilty.

Very rare possibility, but there may be cases.

As an example, a man might need to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt within 90 days of the alleged assault.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I agree she could abort before anything is proved.

But in the hypothetical scenario that she doesn't believe she is pregnant but he takes legal action right away as a precaution, in the very rare case that he is lucky, the Crown might find her guilty of sexual assault around the time she realises that she is pregnant and he already has a court order that takes effect the moment she is found guilty.

Very rare possibility, but there may be cases.

As an example, a man might need to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt within 90 days of the alleged assault.

As always, you have an odd view of the law. Criminal cases are Regina v. Numbnuts, not Victim v. Numbnuts. The alleged victim cannot take legal action in criminal law, only the Crown can. And the Crown gets to choose what action it will take. Sexual assaults may be plea-bargained down to simple assault. All the alleged victim could do is file a civil action (presumably for battery). In civil cases the standard of evidence is preponderance of the evidence, or what you call balance of probabilities.
 
Machjo
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

As always, you have an odd view of the law. Criminal cases are Regina v. Numbnuts, not Victim v. Numbnuts. The alleged victim cannot take legal action in criminal law, only the Crown can. And the Crown gets to choose what action it will take. Sexual assaults may be plea-bargained down to simple assault. All the alleged victim could do is file a civil action (presumably for battery). In civil cases the standard of evidence is preponderance of the evidence, or what you call balance of probabilities.

What stops both a criminal and a civil case? I suppose they can't be going on simultaneously, but I'm sure a law could be drafted whereby if a man should make a declaration that, should she be found guilty in the criminal case, she automatically forfeits the right to an abortion. Of course she could get an abortion before then, but if he's lucky, she might not have thought about it, hesitated, or presumed she was not pregnant. That would then mean she needs to be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in that case. Maybe build it into criminal law that the victim can make that request if the perpetrator is found guilty.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

What stops both a criminal and a civil case? I suppose they can't be going on simultaneously, but I'm sure a law could be drafted whereby if a man should make a declaration that, should she be found guilty in the criminal case, she automatically forfeits the right to an abortion. Of course she could get an abortion before then, but if he's lucky, she might not have thought about it, hesitated, or presumed she was not pregnant. That would then mean she needs to be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in that case. Maybe build it into criminal law that the victim can make that request if the perpetrator is found guilty.

Great idea, because if she's acquitted, given the length of time on criminal cases, the baby will already be born, and you will have achieved your goal of stopping a (potential) abortion and depriving the woman of her reproductive rights.

So, draft the legislation and stand for office.
 
Machjo
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Great idea, because if she's acquitted, given the length of time on criminal cases, the baby will already be born, and you will have achieved your goal of stopping a (potential) abortion and depriving the woman of her reproductive rights.

So, draft the legislation and stand for office.

Is that what I said? No, she could still abort up to the point at which she is found guilty, but not after that.

That significantly reduces its value, granted. In which case it might not even be worthwhile.

So maybe you're right, not worth it.

Though Gerryh, as much of an azzhole as he is, is even more right. It's not worth restricting abortion peacemeal, better all or nothing.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Is that what I said? No, she could still abort up to the point at which she is found guilty, but not after that.

That significantly reduces its value, granted. In which case it might not even be worthwhile.

So maybe you're right, not worth it.

Though Gerryh, as much of an azzhole as he is, is even more right. It's not worth restricting abortion peacemeal, better all or nothing.

Never said it wasn't worth it. Said it was just another sleazy, whiny attempt to attack abortion rights based on a one-in-a-billion extreme scenario. Typical of abortion yappers on both sides.

By the way, it's "piecemeal."