Abortion / "Rape" question

[manifold]

First off, the actual law. A man who is raped _is_ liable for child support. Women found guilty of statuatory rape have successfully sued for child support. If an anonymous sperm donor could be identified, that anonymous sperm donor can be sued for child support. Circumstances of conception are not relevant to child support law.

Now, how _should_ the law be? IMO, of course ...

First, no man or person of any sort should ever be able to force a woman to have an abortion.

Men, however, should be able to opt out of paternity, given that it is the woman's choice to give birth. Woman tells man she's pregnant, he has to say "yes" or "no" within a very short time frame. If he says "yes", he's the legal daddy, and he pays. If he says "no", he has zero claim of any sort on the child, but is not liable for anything.

Married couples would not use this rule, as marriage would be considered prior consent by the man to accept paternity. If a woman wants a guarantee ahead of time, she needs to marry the guy.

IMO if a man willingly puts his penis inside a woman he accepts the consequences, whatever they may be.

But couldnt that be considered non equal protection under the law? Even more so if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed, barring gender from being a determination in any legal condition.

Not by me it wouldn't.

 

[martybegan]

IMO if a man willingly puts his penis inside a woman he accepts the consequences, whatever they may be.

But couldnt that be considered non equal protection under the law? Even more so if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed, barring gender from being a determination in any legal condition.

Not by me it wouldn't.

Two people are required to create a fetus, however one has additional rights given to them soley by reason of their gender. Therefore the laws are applied differently due to gender.

Right now that is legal, but pass the ERA, and that concept goes kaboom.

 

[Noomi]

Lets assume hypothetically that a woman 'rapes' man and gets pregnant. To avoid getting side-tracked on the feasibility aspect, lets further assume that she knocked him out and bound him naked to a bed, then she milked his prostate, collected his sperm in a turkey baster and proceeded to inseminate herself.

Does the man have any right to demand an abortion and why?

Nope, but he has every right to refuse to pay child support.

 

[Noomi]

First off, the actual law. A man who is raped _is_ liable for child support. Women found guilty of statuatory rape have successfully sued for child support. If an anonymous sperm donor could be identified, that anonymous sperm donor can be sued for child support. Circumstances of conception are not relevant to child support law.

Now, how _should_ the law be? IMO, of course ...

First, no man or person of any sort should ever be able to force a woman to have an abortion.

Men, however, should be able to opt out of paternity, given that it is the woman's choice to give birth. Woman tells man she's pregnant, he has to say "yes" or "no" within a very short time frame. If he says "yes", he's the legal daddy, and he pays. If he says "no", he has zero claim of any sort on the child, but is not liable for anything.

Married couples would not use this rule, as marriage would be considered prior consent by the man to accept paternity. If a woman wants a guarantee ahead of time, she needs to marry the guy.

I have no problem with that idea.

I agree with everything he says, too.

 

[manifold]

But couldnt that be considered non equal protection under the law? Even more so if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed, barring gender from being a determination in any legal condition.

Not by me it wouldn't.

Two people are required to create a fetus, however one has additional rights given to them soley by reason of their gender. Therefore the laws are applied differently due to gender.

Right now that is legal, but pass the ERA, and that concept goes kaboom.

You say the additional rights are given solely by reason of their gender, I say the additional rights are given to the one in physical possession of the fetus.

 

[martybegan]

Not by me it wouldn't.

Two people are required to create a fetus, however one has additional rights given to them soley by reason of their gender. Therefore the laws are applied differently due to gender.

Right now that is legal, but pass the ERA, and that concept goes kaboom.

You say the additional rights are given solely by reason of their gender, I say the additional rights are given to the one in physical possession of the fetus.

Which is due to gender. Even after that the legal system holds the rights of the mother over that of the rights of the Father. Currently legal, if you consider equal protection not counting, but again the ERA would eliminate that.

 

[Peach]

Lets assume hypothetically that a woman 'rapes' man and gets pregnant. To avoid getting side-tracked on the feasibility aspect, lets further assume that she knocked him out and bound him naked to a bed, then she milked his prostate, collected his sperm in a turkey baster and proceeded to inseminate herself.

Does the man have any right to demand an abortion and why?

At most I would see a prosecution for kidnapping, theft, sexual assault and unlawful imprisonment.

Also there would be no way in hell she could sue for child support.

Under current law if she wants to keep the baby she could. Also I am lothe to support any type of legislation that would mandate an abortion, as opposed to one the prevents one.

Be that as it may, I wouldnt vote for an abortion ban, however I do believe it is a legislative issue, not a consitutional one, and if a state/locality wants to ban abortion they should be able to.

Not only could she sue for child support, but she would undoubtably get it. Boys who have been the victims of statutory rape by an older woman have to pay child support all the time.

That is one of the usual SEXUAL BATTERY scenarios with male victims; adult female engages in sex with a young male, not old enough to consent. Also of course, are inmate sexual batteries. Sexual battery victims are by no means always female.

 

[manifold]

Two people are required to create a fetus, however one has additional rights given to them soley by reason of their gender. Therefore the laws are applied differently due to gender.

Right now that is legal, but pass the ERA, and that concept goes kaboom.

You say the additional rights are given solely by reason of their gender, I say the additional rights are given to the one in physical possession of the fetus.

Which is due to gender. Even after that the legal system holds the rights of the mother over that of the rights of the Father. Currently legal, if you consider equal protection not counting, but again the ERA would eliminate that.

I understand your point, but I don't think it has any legs beyond academic debate, such as we're having now. I'm pretty sure we won't be adding any amendments anytime soon that rescind a woman's reproductive rights while simultaneously absolving a man of his child support responsibilities.

 

[martybegan]

You say the additional rights are given solely by reason of their gender, I say the additional rights are given to the one in physical possession of the fetus.

Which is due to gender. Even after that the legal system holds the rights of the mother over that of the rights of the Father. Currently legal, if you consider equal protection not counting, but again the ERA would eliminate that.

I understand your point, but I don't think it has any legs beyond academic debate, such as we're having now. I'm pretty sure we won't be adding any amendments anytime soon that rescind a woman's reproductive rights while simultaneously absolving a man of his child support responsibilities.

I agree, 100% academic. My concern is that an ERA would be written in a way that would force courts to decide in ways that were not thought of by any writer, the ability of the state to force men to pay for thier children being one of the concepts that could be jeopardized.

The path to that would be that you would have to then give a man a choice, just as woman has a choice, to "terminate" a pregnancy. Any other outcome would be prohibited by a poorly worded equal rights amendment.

 

[Againsheila]

I'm not talking about legislation mandating an abortion, I'm talking about the victim of rape being allowed to choose whether to terminate a resulting pregnancy.

Excellent question...the problem is there is a difference between men and women. A woman who goes though pregnancy goes through changes. I didn't have arthritis before I had kids. Therefore I don't think it's the same. I do believe that the man can't be sued for child support and that the woman should be forced to give up the child. No woman like that should be allowed to raise kids.

Thanks for putting a new perspective on the debate for me. I know it's not what you wanted, but now I don't believe the man should have ANY say in whether the woman should get an abortion or not. Previously I thought the father should have a say.

I've always thought the father cannot have any say, legally speaking. Who breaks the tie when he and her disagree?

The father has no say, that's been one of my problems. Why is it only the mother can choose not to be a parent after conception? The father is stuck with whatever the mother decides.

 

[manifold]

Excellent question...the problem is there is a difference between men and women. A woman who goes though pregnancy goes through changes. I didn't have arthritis before I had kids. Therefore I don't think it's the same. I do believe that the man can't be sued for child support and that the woman should be forced to give up the child. No woman like that should be allowed to raise kids.

Thanks for putting a new perspective on the debate for me. I know it's not what you wanted, but now I don't believe the man should have ANY say in whether the woman should get an abortion or not. Previously I thought the father should have a say.

I've always thought the father cannot have any say, legally speaking. Who breaks the tie when he and her disagree?

The father has no say, that's been one of my problems. Why is it only the mother can choose not to be a parent after conception? The father is stuck with whatever the mother decides.

He can always keep it in his pants.

 

[martybegan]

I've always thought the father cannot have any say, legally speaking. Who breaks the tie when he and her disagree?

The father has no say, that's been one of my problems. Why is it only the mother can choose not to be a parent after conception? The father is stuck with whatever the mother decides.

He can always keep it in his pants.

and in a consensual situation she can always keep it out of hers. The only unfair part is for self pleasure a woman may need a little "assitance", usually running on a few C batteries.

 

[Ravi]

First off, the actual law. A man who is raped _is_ liable for child support. Women found guilty of statuatory rape have successfully sued for child support. If an anonymous sperm donor could be identified, that anonymous sperm donor can be sued for child support. Circumstances of conception are not relevant to child support law.

Now, how _should_ the law be? IMO, of course ...

First, no man or person of any sort should ever be able to force a woman to have an abortion.

Men, however, should be able to opt out of paternity, given that it is the woman's choice to give birth. Woman tells man she's pregnant, he has to say "yes" or "no" within a very short time frame. If he says "yes", he's the legal daddy, and he pays. If he says "no", he has zero claim of any sort on the child, but is not liable for anything.

Married couples would not use this rule, as marriage would be considered prior consent by the man to accept paternity. If a woman wants a guarantee ahead of time, she needs to marry the guy.

Prior consent happens when the man decides to share his sperm. Once the baby is born, the parents are equally responsible for it unless one legally gives the other permission to shirk their responsibility. Even that is wrong, as the child can't enjoy the same legal say.

 

[Ravi]

But couldnt that be considered non equal protection under the law? Even more so if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed, barring gender from being a determination in any legal condition.

Not by me it wouldn't.

Two people are required to create a fetus, however one has additional rights given to them soley by reason of their gender. Therefore the laws are applied differently due to gender.

Right now that is legal, but pass the ERA, and that concept goes kaboom.

It isn't actually by reason of gender. It's by reason that only one of them can use their body to bear a child. To make it equal, if the man gets pregnant then he also gets to decide what to do with his body.

 

[martybegan]

Not by me it wouldn't.

Two people are required to create a fetus, however one has additional rights given to them soley by reason of their gender. Therefore the laws are applied differently due to gender.

Right now that is legal, but pass the ERA, and that concept goes kaboom.

It isn't actually by reason of gender. It's by reason that only one of them can use their body to bear a child. To make it equal, if the man gets pregnant then he also gets to decide what to do with his body.

The law if improperly constucted would ignore biology when it comes to the legal term of gender. Once you eliminate differences in gender from the law, you automatically eliminate differences in biology.

 

[mal]

Not by me it wouldn't.

Two people are required to create a fetus, however one has additional rights given to them soley by reason of their gender. Therefore the laws are applied differently due to gender.

Right now that is legal, but pass the ERA, and that concept goes kaboom.

It isn't actually by reason of gender. It's by reason that only one of them can use their body to bear a child. To make it equal, if the man gets pregnant then he also gets to decide what to do with his body.

There are two bodies... The Woman and the Child... And the Woman can't Manifest a Child without a Man.

Take it up with God... Don't Kill Babies because they are Inconvenient.



peace...

 

[Ravi]

Two people are required to create a fetus, however one has additional rights given to them soley by reason of their gender. Therefore the laws are applied differently due to gender.

Right now that is legal, but pass the ERA, and that concept goes kaboom.

It isn't actually by reason of gender. It's by reason that only one of them can use their body to bear a child. To make it equal, if the man gets pregnant then he also gets to decide what to do with his body.

The law if improperly constucted would ignore biology when it comes to the legal term of gender. Once you eliminate differences in gender from the law, you automatically eliminate differences in biology.

Could you give me an example? I'm just not grasping what you are saying.

 

[martybegan]

It isn't actually by reason of gender. It's by reason that only one of them can use their body to bear a child. To make it equal, if the man gets pregnant then he also gets to decide what to do with his body.

The law if improperly constucted would ignore biology when it comes to the legal term of gender. Once you eliminate differences in gender from the law, you automatically eliminate differences in biology.

Could you give me an example? I'm just not grasping what you are saying.

The text of the Equal Rights Amendment

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Based on this, if abortion is a right, how do you deny the right of a man to abort a fetus that is partly his without violating his right to equality of rights based on sex? You may have a "possesion" way out of it, but I guarantee a court case would be filed almost immediately.

Furthermore things like child support and custody would no longer favor the woman, because in doing so you would be denying equality of rights.

 

[Ravi]

The law if improperly constucted would ignore biology when it comes to the legal term of gender. Once you eliminate differences in gender from the law, you automatically eliminate differences in biology.

Could you give me an example? I'm just not grasping what you are saying.

The text of the Equal Rights Amendment

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Based on this, if abortion is a right, how do you deny the right of a man to abort a fetus that is partly his without violating his right to equality of rights based on sex? You may have a "possesion" way out of it, but I guarantee a court case would be filed almost immediately.

Furthermore things like child support and custody would no longer favor the woman, because in doing so you would be denying equality of rights.

I think the possession way out of it will certainly work.

As to your second statement, that wouldn't really be a bad thing. The child support should follow the custodial parent and the custody should follow the parent that has the best interests of the child at heart.

 

[manifold]

The law if improperly constucted would ignore biology when it comes to the legal term of gender. Once you eliminate differences in gender from the law, you automatically eliminate differences in biology.

Could you give me an example? I'm just not grasping what you are saying.

The text of the Equal Rights Amendment

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Based on this, if abortion is a right, how do you deny the right of a man to abort a fetus that is partly his without violating his right to equality of rights based on sex? You may have a "possesion" way out of it, but I guarantee a court case would be filed almost immediately.

Furthermore things like child support and custody would no longer favor the woman, because in doing so you would be denying equality of rights.

If you're right about the first part, I'd wager that the court(s) would quickly set the precedent that a man cannot legally force a woman into an abortion.

As for the second part, good, child support and custody matters should give equal consideration to both parents.