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

[Machjo]

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 So, withdrawn with apologies.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]

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

 

[Machjo]

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.

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 So, withdrawn with apologies.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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Is this some form of reproductive Sharia Law?

In its treatment of women, yes.

 

[Machjo]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Well, in that case, hang the skank

Capital punishment if a pregnant woman for sexual assault?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."