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

[Machjo]

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."

Yeah. I was typing too fast.

One law I like that applies in many US states (don't know about in Canada) is that even if an alleged perpetrator is not found criminally responsible for sexual assault, a victim who can prove civilly that the child was conceived through sexual assault can sue for child support while also refusing visiting rights to the other parent.

If I understand correctly, there is pressure on other states to adopt a similar law.

It is risky since a parent could make a false rape claim and would need to prove it only beyond a reasonable doubt. It's especially risky when he can sue for child support and refuse visiting rights too. But it's not that bad. If he was a willing participant in the act, then tough. If a perpetrator claims the assault went the other way, then the victim could stand fusm and day he's the victim.

I see potential problems with it, but tend to lean in its favour.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Yeah. I was typing too fast.

One law I like that applies in many US states (don't know about in Canada) is that even if an alleged perpetrator is not found criminally responsible for sexual assault, a victim who can prove civilly that the child was conceived through sexual assault can sue for child support while also refusing visiting rights to the other parent.

If I understand correctly, there is pressure on other states to adopt a similar law.

It is risky since a parent could make a false rape claim and would need to prove it only beyond a reasonable doubt. It's especially risky when he can sue for child support and refuse visiting rights too. But it's not that bad. If he was a willing participant in the act, then tough. If a perpetrator claims the assault went the other way, then the victim could stand fusm and day he's the victim.

I see potential problems with it, but tend to lean in its favour.

But how will that forbid an abortion?

 

[Machjo]

But how will that forbid an abortion?

It wouldn't, so a female perpetrator could choose to abort.

However, regardless of the sex of the perpetrator, should the mother choose to give birth, the the victim (whether the mother of the father) could sue the perpetrator for sole custody and child support.

Now, could this allow a female perpetrator to get a male victim to sign a contract whereby in exchange for her keeping the baby, he forfeits all parental rights and obligations to the baby?

I don't know. Could that qualify as him agreeing to the contract under duress?

Again, I don't know.

So in the end, the mother will simply have to choose to keep the baby before the victim can enjoy any right to the baby and impose financial compensation onto the perpetrator.

Of course that could increase the motivation for a female perpetrator to have an abortion.

With that in mind, it might then make more sense unfortunately to grant parental rights to the mother with the right to sue for child support independently of who is the victim and who the perpetrator since the woman controls the decision to abort and consequently all other decisions from there on in.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It wouldn't, so a female perpetrator could choose to abort.

However, regardless of the sex of the perpetrator, should the mother choose to give birth, the the victim (whether the mother of the father) could sue the perpetrator for sole custody and child support.

Now, could this allow a female perpetrator to get a male victim to sign a contract whereby in exchange for her keeping the baby, he forfeits all parental rights and obligations to the baby?

I don't know. Could that qualify as him agreeing to the contract under duress?

Again, I don't know.

So in the end, the mother will simply have to choose to keep the baby before the victim can enjoy any right to the baby and impose financial compensation onto the perpetrator.

Of course that could increase the motivation for a female perpetrator to have an abortion.

Again, conflating different areas of law.

Here's the deal, Jo. In the U.S., the touchstone of all child custody and support law is what's best for the child. That principle allows the court to override anything it finds is not in the child's best interests. So f*ck your contracts, f*ck your agreements, and f*ck your proposed statutes. All of it's just pissing in the wind.

 

[Machjo]

That can be a good thing when the woman is te victim though.

Again, conflating different areas of law.

Here's the deal, Jo. In the U.S., the touchstone of all child custody and support law is what's best for the child. That principle allows the court to override anything it finds is not in the child's best interests. So f*ck your contracts, f*ck your agreements, and f*ck your proposed statutes. All of it's just pissing in the wind.

True enough, Tek.

 

[taxslave]

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.

SInce life starts at birth not conception and a woman has the right to control her body, not some guy this is totally irrelevant.

 

[Machjo]

SInce life starts at birth not conception and a woman has the right to control her body, not some guy this is totally irrelevant.

Does a man not have the right to decide with whom he will have sex and who will take his sperm?

 

[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.

 

[taxslave]

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.”

Must be a lot of gay boyz in england.

Does a man not have the right to decide with whom he will have sex and who will take his sperm?

You will first have to convince me that a woman can rape a man. Coerce a man into sex sure but to force him to get hard and then keep him inside her requires a certain amount of consent on the part of the man. In any event it is her body so if she chooses nto to have a baby that is her right.

 

[Machjo]

Must be a lot of gay boyz in england.



You will first have to convince me that a woman can rape a man. Coerce a man into sex sure but to force him to get hard and then keep him inside her requires a certain amount of consent on the part of the man. In any event it is her body so if she chooses nto to have a baby that is her right.

If you're a man, then you know that an erection has nothing to do with desire. A man can get an erection while completely asleep. Women have used date rape drugs. And yes, in many cases it's more psychological coercion. But women have in some cases used physicial force. There are even cases of women using weapons. And then the classic school teacher molesting her little toy boy. Statutory assault.

 

[gerryh]

Must be a lot of gay boyz in england.



You will first have to convince me that a woman can rape a man. Coerce a man into sex sure but to force him to get hard and then keep him inside her requires a certain amount of consent on the part of the man. In any event it is her body so if she chooses nto to have a baby that is her right.

Once again you throw your ignorance out there for everyone to see.

 

[Machjo]

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.

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?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Once again you throw your ignorance out there for everyone to see.

He hasn't read "The World According to Garp."

 

[Machjo]

He hasn't read "The World According to Garp."

What's that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_According_to_Garp

Got it. Heck, female on male sexual assault is depicted even in the book of Genesis 20:30-


And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father
is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.


Alcohol: a Hebrew woman's date-rape drug of choice.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

What's that?

Google is your research assistant.

I ain't.

 

[Machjo]

Google is your research assistant.

I ain't.

Slow on the ball, Tek.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Slow on the ball, Tek.

You just now heard of a book that was published in 1978 to rave reviews, made into a movie in 1982 starring Robin Williams, and you're calling me slow on the ball?

 

[Machjo]

You just now heard of a book that was published in 1978 to rave reviews, made into a movie in 1982 starring Robin Williams, and you're calling me slow on the ball?

I was referring to my post just before yours.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I was referring to my post just before yours.

But his point is still valid.

 

[Machjo]

But his point is still valid.

Fair enough.