Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hello everyone, I have seen this hypothetical question posed before, so I am posting it here.

This is a debate thread. The subject matter is a bit disturbing, so don't read it if you are very easily upset.

If a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant, should she be forced to get an abortion or give that child up for adoption if the raped man wants nothing to do with the child?

Because if she were to keep it then what do you think the difference would be between that scenario and the scenario of a male rapist who impregnated a woman via rape having the legal right to take custody of the baby that was the outcome of a rape he committed?


Hope I made that clear.

Now I would also like to make clear that female on male rape is well within the limits of the possible. Not only through "statutory rape." It is physiologically possible for either a man or a woman to make an unwilling or even unconscious man ejaculate. Check the link that dispels myths on the subject. I have copied and pasted the relevant passage.

http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm

>> Myth: Getting an erection or ejaculation during sexual assault means you "really wanted it" or consented to it.


Reality: This is one of the things that can cause male rape survivors a lot of confusion and guilt when they do not know how things work. For a start I can honestly say that getting an erection shows nothing other than your body responds how it is suppose to do. It is a totally normal thing to happen and has nothing to do with desire. Have you never been on a bus, or sat in an office meeting, and it has gone hard all by it's self for no reason ?
Basically, unless you have some medical condition that stops you then you will get an erection when it is manipulated. It is a result of stimulation, and it does not matter if you do not want it to happen or not. There is little you can do to stop it most of the time.
Sadly, some males become confused and think an erection equals arousal equals them wanting it. In reality all it means is that part of the body has nerve endings that respond to touch and that touch can be wanted or not wanted, pleasant or non pleasant. With lubricant you will have even less choice as to how it responds to touch. It is the same as the body will respond to someone tickling you and you will probably laugh, but if it is done at a time or by a person you do not want to tickle you it will still respond.
If you were penetrated, the pressure in the prostate gland (see diagram below) also will cause an erection. Anyone who has ever had a DRE (short for Digital Rectal Exam) of the prostate at their doctors will know that getting an erection often happens during the examination. <<

Even if a man has been knocked unconscious by a blow to his head, it is still possible to force his penis into a state of erection by putting a rubber band around it. This causes blood to pool in the penis, resulting in erection that will only stop when the rubber band is removed.

Sadly, many ignorant people flat out refuse to believe that abuse of any kind by a girl or woman is even possible, whatever the age or gender of the victim. Popular perceptions of abuse perpetrated by women manage the difficult feat of being even worse than popular perceptions of male on male rape.

Don't forget to vote in the poll!

That's not the only way a woman can rape a man, in fact that is really rare.

More common cases are statutory rape, or rape where the victim is blackmailed or threatened. (yes, that's also considered rape - if a woman blackmails or threatens a man to have sex with her against his will, it's still rape).

In a survey answered by hundreds of rape and sexual assault support agencies, they estimated that 93.7 percent of male rape perpetrators are male and 6.3 percent were female.

Maybe the 93.7% men raping other men should be addressed before the 6.3% is.

Unless we're in South Africa, LB. Everything is...different there.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Maybe the 93.7% men raping other men should be addressed before the 6.3% is.

I am very strongly against the idea that female rapists should simply be ignored.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I am very strongly against the idea that female rapists should simply be ignored.

I expect that man on man rape is a lot more prolific than woman on man rape, but bear in mind that the statistics are skewed by the fact that victims of women would be more ashamed about reporting it.

The focus of the poll is about the issue of conceptions via rape which are impossible with male on male rape. I do not deny that male on male rape is an issue of enormous seriousness.

The lurid scenario I wrote in the original post was meant to give a very clear cut hypothetical case of woman on man rape, however, lil bitchiness is exactly right about both the other ways it is possible and the fact that those other ways are much more likely. Besides statutory rape, women who are rapists are most likely to take advantage of men who are drunk or high, or use to blackmail. But these cases are virtually impossible to prove in a court of law because of popular perceptions that female on male rape is somehow more acceptable than male on male or male on female rape.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Maybe the 93.7% men raping other men should be addressed before the 6.3% is.

So that means the 6.3% are less important? Rape is still rape. Why not address the 100%?

In one respect, victims of deviant women (whatever their age or gender) are even worse off than victims of deviant men, because even today, society still either disbelieves them or is scornful towards them and they are much less likely to receive legal and therapeutic support

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I am very strongly against the idea that female rapists should simply be ignored.

I don't believe I said anything about ignoring, but about addressing a particular in the logical order.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhythmic
So that means the 6.3% are less important? Rape is still rape. Why not address the 100%?

Yes, why not? Considering that more women are raped by men then men by other men or women, why the hell is it not addressed?

So, if for example 90% of the crime is committed in an impoverished neighbourhood while 10% of crime is committed in a filthy rich neighbourhood, we're clearly not going to bother addressing the impoverished neighbourhood first and the reasons for crime, because crime is crime, right?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So, if for example 90% of the crime is committed in an impoverished neighbourhood while 10% of crime is committed in a filthy rich neighbourhood, we're clearly not going to bother addressing the impoverished neighbourhood first and the reasons for crime, because crime is crime, right?

I think the solution is simple:


Allocate 90% of the resources to the poor neighborhood and 10% to the rich one.


Problem solved.

But there's two opposing ideas on how to approach this:


But there are other factors to consider: rich neighborhoods will have security systems with camera. This will make catching the bad guys easier. So not as many resources will be needed for the rich neighborhood to solve lots of the crimes. So we could probably end up with a 95% and 5% resource allocation and our "per capita crimes solved" ratio would be equal in both locations.


But even better: we could argue that the people in the rich neighborhood provide the most taxes to the municipality, by far, so we should work more with our clients that pay the bills. So a 50-50 split is more fair. Without the rich neighborhood, the poor neighborhood would not get nearly as much attention.



Reality: 90% of Law Enforcement resources are spent on the "poor"'s crimes, anyway. They commit the most crimes.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't believe I said anything about ignoring, but about addressing a particular in the logical order.

There's no "order" for doing things involved. We don't have to get rid of all the male rapist before we start taking issue with the female rapists.
We can address both at the same time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no "order" for doing things involved. We don't have to get rid of all the male rapist before we start taking issue with the female rapists.
We can address both at the same time.

Yes you are right. And I only focused the thread on female on male cases because of the issue of pregnancies resulting from such rapes which are not covered properly by the law in any of the English speaking countries.

Male on male rape is certainly the more prolific problem for male victims, but we can address both at the same time.

I want a woman to rape me.

Aside from the blackmail thing, I don't think a woman can rape me. I'd pretend to hate it for her sake (cuz I'm considerate like that), but really, my boner's not going anywhere.

Actually it could be done with a rubber band kiddo.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I want a woman to rape me.

Then it wouldn't be rape.


Originally posted by Bigon
Actually it could be done with a rubber band kiddo.

Are you talking about the same technique that the "cock ring" employs?

Obviously I am my friend, but rubber bands are cheaper and anyone has ready access to them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Aside from the blackmail thing, I don't think a woman can rape me. I'd pretend to hate it for her sake (cuz I'm considerate like that), but really, my boner's not going anywhere.

Sexual arousal has nothing to do with whether or not it is rape.

I think you missed his point.

I'm trying to figure out how a woman would rape a man? Aside from being tied up, and dildo raped, how does she rape a man if he is erect? An erection would mean that he is willing to penetrate the woman no matter what position that he may be in.

Originally posted by Stoic
I'm trying to figure out how a woman would rape a man? Aside from being tied up, and dildo raped, how does she rape a man if he is erect? An erection would mean that he is willing to penetrate the woman no matter what position that he may be in.

Well...SC already alluded to this point but you can get a boner in a situation that you are not wanting to...bone?

Not sure if those are the words.

Anyway....

This old dude sees erections due to cathoders from 50% of his patients (that's a picture of a real urologist, lol).

http://wacky5.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Dr-Anthony-Richard-Mundy.jpg

Yes, he's looking at you because he's concerned about your boners during the exam he's giving you.




Do you honestly think half (what a nurse told meh) of the men are REALLY sexually aroused by this old doctor or is it an uncontrollable response that is very embarrassing for the men?

From personal experience, I can tell you I got a half-boner when the family practitioner was handling my junk looking for a herniation. I can assure you that even if I were gay, my familiy practitioner would be one of the last people I would want to "penetrate". It's just a natural response you can't help.


You also get erections in your sleep even if you're not dreaming about something sexy.


Then some people get boners during hangings (hung just wasn't the optimal word).


So, no, not all boners mean "bone it".

Originally posted by Stoic
An erection would mean that he is willing to penetrate the woman no matter what position that he may be in.

No it would not.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no "order" for doing things involved. We don't have to get rid of all the male rapist before we start taking issue with the female rapists.
We can address both at the same time.

There is an 'order' actually and a process. Clearly you're unfamiliar with this, as you are with way too many other things.


Sociologists and social policy makers, when addressing the issue of anything, not just rape, look for patterns within any crime committed.
This is done to establish the reasons for the crime, such as social status, sex, age group, culture...etc so that solution can be found.

If the highest number of crimes is committed by a particular social class, particular sex or particular sub-group it is investigated FROM THERE. It's called a starting point.

So far, it has been established that vast majority of rapes have been committed by heterosexual men on both men AND women. Highest percentage of raped women know their attacker, so attacks by random strangers are rare. It has also been established that rape has nothing to do with sex, but power and humiliation, and that sex is merely the means for degradation, humiliation and punishment.
This has been established through study of MEN raping.

On top of that, men raping other men has physical and psychological damages to a victim FAR GREATER than any rape woman commits.
The allocation of resources for rape should be 93% of men raping and 6.7% on women raping, REFLECTING THE ACTUAL PROBLEM.

Read Giddens or something if you're going to get into a sociological debate.

EDIT: They are addressed at the same time, but logically not in the same degree because the problem isn't in the same degree nor is it widespread!

lol. I dont even...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
On top of that, men raping other men has physical and psychological damages to a victim FAR GREATER than any rape woman commits.

Based on your own personal speculation?

If a woman threatens to kill you the forces a beer bottle up you ass that's going to cause you exactly as much psychological trauma as a man doing the same. We can test this if you'd like.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The allocation of resources for rape should be 93% of men raping and 6.7% on women raping, REFLECTING THE ACTUAL PROBLEM.


And no one has aruged against that. I just think your position that women should be treated more lightly for crimes is completely batshit insane.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
They are addressed at the same time, but logically not in the same degree because the problem isn't in the same degree nor is it widespread!

I'd like you to define "degree" here because it sounds like you're arguing that we should punish crimes less severely if they're less common.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd like you to define "degree" here because it sounds like you're arguing that we should punish crimes less severely if they're less common.

I probably could use some clarification, as well. From what I understood from Lil B, statutory rape is hardly the same crime as an adult woman raping an adult man.

Come on...when you were 16 or 17...you would have boned Mrs. Johnson, without hesitation, if she offered, right? 313

Now, I've read of cases of middle school teachers having sex with their 13 year old male students. That's going too far, obviously. But it was still consensual vs. the straight up rape kind Lil B was talking about.


So, yes, there does appear to be a layman interpretation of "degree".


However, from my own academic studies of rape degrees, there are usually 3-4 legally defined degrees of rape. That MAY be what she was talking about. In most states, 3rd degree rape is statutory rape. Lil B would know much more about this than I because she has a Masters in Criminal Law (or was it Criminology?) I only had to take 2 courses on it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Come on...when you were 16 or 17...you would have boned Mrs. Johnson, without hesitation, if she offered, right? 313

No, I really wouldn't have. Even today I would find a person offering to have sex with me fairly disturbing. I know that with all the cliches we've built up around male sexuality this is probably very hard to believe but my revulsion at the thought of coming in contact with another person is much greater than my desire to have sex.

I've looked at people and thought "he/she is very attractive" but never "and I've like to have sex with him/her".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Now, I've read of cases of middle school teachers having sex with their 13 year old male students. That's going too far, obviously. But it was still consensual vs. the straight up rape kind Lil B was talking about.

The nature of consent among the very young is a different (and even more contentious) subject. Personally I think much of the US sets the age of consent too high, 15 seems more appropriate to me, but I wouldn't accept the claim that a 13-year-old consensually had sex with a person more than a few years older. I do realize that this restricts the right of 13-year-olds in way that may occasionally be unnecessary (I believe you've mentioned feeling ready for sex around that age) but children are in a very vulnerable situation in any interaction with an adult and I prefer to protect them from potential abuse.

Its very hard to find out if a child really consented to something or not. In psych studies of children its important to correct for what's sometimes called the "yes-saying-bias". Given that issue I prefer to err on the side of caution

I just noticed that I wrote this whole thing and it exactly four words of that post. In any event I also don't think rape should drop to a lower degree because the victim was male the attacker female.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, I really wouldn't have. Even today I would find a person offering to have sex with me fairly disturbing. I know that with all the cliches we've built up around male sexuality this is probably very hard to believe but my revulsion at the thought of coming in contact with another person is much greater than my desire to have I would imagine that has more to do with your severe social anxiety issues than it does with anything else, though, I imagine. Yah?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, I really wouldn't have. Even today I would find a person offering to have sex with me fairly disturbing. I know that with all the cliches we've built up around male sexuality this is probably very hard to believe but my revulsion at the thought of coming in contact with another person is much greater than my desire to have sex.

No, no, you're fine. I ain't judgin'. It was a joke not intended to be taken seriously. I know how you are about sex and I see nothing wrong with your perspective. I should have been a bit more sensitive so I apologize for that. But, it was definitely intended as a joke.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The nature of consent among the very young is a different (and even more contentious) subject. Personally I think much of the US sets the age of consent too high, 15 seems more appropriate to me, but I wouldn't accept the claim that a 13-year-old consensually had sex with a person more than a few years older. I do realize that this restricts the right of 13-year-olds in way that may occasionally be unnecessary (I believe you've mentioned feeling ready for sex around that age) but children are in a very vulnerable situation in any interaction with an adult and I prefer to protect them from potential abuse.

I agree. I think sex with a 13-year old should only happen with someone a year or two older or younger than them. I am not too familiar with the psychology around that but it just seems natural and more healthy for a child's sexual development if their first sexual experiences are with other children around their age.

But, yes...as a 13 year old, if the teacher was hot enough, I probably would not have said no. That's probably why it is considered "statitory rape" because at that age, most kids aren't socially developed enough (and intellectually) to make a genuinely informed consent.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its very hard to find out if a child really consented to something or not. In psych studies of children its important to correct for what's sometimes called the "yes-saying-bias". Given that issue I prefer to err on the side of caution

Ditto. Also agreed on the "err on the side of caution" when it comes to kids and sexual consent.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I just noticed that I wrote this whole thing and it exactly four words of that post. In any event I also don't think rape should drop to a lower degree because the victim was male the attacker female.

I dunno, man. Like you said, it can be difficult to determine if it was really the really bad kind of rape. In the 7th and 8th grade, my classmates talked very graphically about sex with the hot interns. That seems par for the course. It is difficult for me to view 13-14 year old boys, who talked about banging one of the intern assistants (22-23 years old?) in graphic ways, as not consenting to sex. It may not be an "adult" consent, but it is consent none-the-less.

It should be expected that a nice figure and a pretty face will sexually arouse straight young men. That could be boiled down to, "A sexually mature human should sexually arouse another sexually mature/ing human."

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I would imagine that has more to do with your severe social anxiety issues than it does with anything else, though, I imagine. Yah?

Partly, I think it's mostly a dislike of sticky fluids thing. Kissing grosses me out but I like hugs.

We don't need to make it an issue that's personal to me, though, we can just propose a greasy woman who weighs 300 pounds. Now it is the outlier who will want to have sex with her rather than the outlier who will not.

Indeed.

I apologize if I got a little too personal, though. I wasn't trying to take a dig at you.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Indeed.

I apologize if I got a little too personal, though. I wasn't trying to take a dig at you.

No, that was my fault I brought it up.

Originally posted by Stoic
An erection would mean that he is willing to penetrate the woman no matter what position that he may be in.

No, actually.

I guarantee you that I, a male, could give you an erection without much trouble via stimulation, despite you being straight (I assume, anyway). Oh yes ****ers I went there.

The physiological reactions to stimulation do not make sex you don't consent to magically not rape, as similar physiological reactions often befall women who are being raped (And indeed, it is due to this that many rape cases are not reported, being ashamed that it, for lack of a better way to phrase this, "felt good".

So yeah, men can be raped by women.

I like how I don't think anyone has actually answered this question though.

I don't know. I don't think he should be forced to take care of it, but eh, forcing an abortion I am unsure about, adoption might be necessary though, since I am not too keen on the notion of rapists raising children.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That's not the only way a woman can rape a man, in fact that is really rare.

More common cases are statutory rape, or rape where the victim is blackmailed or threatened. (yes, that's also considered rape - if a woman blackmails or threatens a man to have sex with her against his will, it's still rape).

In a survey answered by hundreds of rape and sexual assault support agencies, they estimated that 93.7 percent of male rape perpetrators are male and 6.3 percent were female.

Maybe the 93.7% men raping other men should be addressed before the 6.3% is.

I argee it happens but it is mosty the man who rapes not the woman.

@Jackie - yes it goes without saying that the majority of brutal rapes are perpetrated by men (whatever the gender of the victim) but society has strange and messed up ideas of cases perpetrated by women. Check this essay on the subject.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6469/is_n35/ai_n28711408/?tag=content;col1

And what is more shocking is how until very recently, deviant women who abused very young victims could get away with it because of the strange mass delusion that women are all pure angels...! The BBC made the following documentary on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALdzDaqXbu8

In the 1980s sexual abuse of children was acknowledged in the UK as being possible, but it was not acknowledged that it was possible for deviant women to do it. It's only just beginning to be officially recognised as a real issue now.

It is now considered likely that 20% of all sexual abuse of small children is carried out by women...! That is a problem of colossal scale to just ignore.

If a man allows a woman to rape him he is either weak and deserved it or he wanted it to happen

Originally posted by NemeBro
No, actually.

I guarantee you that I, a male, could give you an erection without much trouble via stimulation, despite you being straight (I assume, anyway). Oh yes ****ers I went there.

The physiological reactions to stimulation do not make sex you don't consent to magically not rape, as similar physiological reactions often befall women who are being raped (And indeed, it is due to this that many rape cases are not reported, being ashamed that it, for lack of a better way to phrase this, "felt good".

So yeah, men can be raped by women.

I like how I don't think anyone has actually answered this question though.

I don't know. I don't think he should be forced to take care of it, but eh, forcing an abortion I am unsure about, adoption might be necessary though, since I am not too keen on the notion of rapists raising children.

Nope.

Fear = no erection.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
If a man allows a woman to rape him he is either weak and deserved it or he wanted it to happen If a man "allowed" a woman to rape him, it wouldn't be rape.

Dude.

I voted yes on abortion if rape had occurred (without protection of course), it's something he didn't want and shouldn't have to live knowing about even if he doesn't have to bear the cost. I feel the same about those women who tamper with condoms or stop birth control without telling - scary stuff!

Now the mechanics of the rape itself is not foolproof to even produce a child unless the guy is prepped either chemically and/or held down for a long time by others.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
If a man allows a woman to rape him he is either weak and deserved it or he wanted it to happen

You wouldn't happen to be a moron, would you?

Evidence thus far points to yes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nope.

Fear = no erection.

Viagra begs to differ.

Originally posted by ares834
Viagra begs to differ.

Drugging someone is just that.

Originally posted by Robtard
Drugging someone is just that.

Probably constitutes...what second or third degree?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Probably constitutes...what second or third degree?

Drugging someone to rape them? I'd imagine it would be rape, but you never know with some insane US laws.

Indeed. It would vary by state. I can't keep track of them anymore.

So, like is the female rapist in jail? Because I think that if we're going to be questioning what legal rights he has in the case of being raped, that it relies on him being able to legally prove that he was raped or that the woman is a rapist.

In such a scenario I'd need to know whether he'd be the one taking care of the child as the father. If he's expected to look after it while she serves her time then yes, he should be able to have a say in an abortion. And in any case I don't think he should be made to pay child support.

I don't know that he should have a say in abortion... I guess I feel undecided. Though I don't think that a man who was raped should ever be under obligation to take care of a rape child that he can't provide for. Nor should such a child be allowed to stay with the mother given that she is, you know, a rapist and all (and should be in jail, etc).

I cannot conscience forcing a woman to have an abortion under any circumstances. Obviously the man shouldn't have any obligation to take care of the child or mother.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I cannot conscience forcing a woman to have an abortion under any circumstances.

What if the child was the anti-Christ and his birth would herald in the end of the world?

Originally posted by Robtard
What if the child was the anti-Christ and his birth would herald in the end of the world?

I cannot think of any realistic circumstances where I could conscience forcing an abortion.

How do you PROVE that Rob? estahuh

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I cannot think of any realistic circumstances where I could conscience forcing an abortion.

So you'd let the world come to an end over one abortion. Man, you liberals.

Originally posted by NemeBro
How do you PROVE that Rob? estahuh

Happens in movies. /fact

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I cannot conscience forcing a woman to have an abortion under any circumstances. Obviously the man shouldn't have any obligation to take care of the child or mother.

IMO its just as much his child as hers. In a case of an 'simple' unwanted pregnancy I would be inclined to agree with you, as the man must have known the risk of pregnancy when they had sex (though, so would the mother), and in that case I would be inclined to lean towards the mother as its her body. I would still be inclined to suggest that he has a say in the matter but I would be uncomfortable with saying he can force an abortion. However in the circumstances we are discussing she raped him. He had no control in the matter, no say in whether he wanted to risk pregnancy. If he doesn't want the responsibility of having a child I would be leaning towards his opinion over the mother. Who is a rapist, a crime I admit to having a considerable emotional bias against.

Originally posted by Nephthys
IMO its just as much his child as hers. In a case of an 'simple' unwanted pregnancy I would be inclined to agree with you, as the man must have known the risk of pregnancy when they had sex (though, so would the mother), and in that case I would be inclined to lean towards the mother as its her body. I would still be inclined to suggest that he has a say in the matter but I would be uncomfortable with saying he can force an abortion. However in the circumstances we are discussing she raped him. He had no control in the matter, no say in whether he wanted to risk pregnancy. If he doesn't want the responsibility of having a child I would be leaning towards his opinion over the mother. Who is a rapist, a crime I admit to having a considerable emotional bias against.


I agree. I'd lean towards letting the lady decide without forcing the man to be responsible.


However, should the man be allowed to force her to keep the child instead of aborting? What about that decision?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. I'd lean towards letting the lady decide without forcing the man to be responsible.


However, should the man be allowed to force her to keep the child instead of aborting? What about that decision?

Again the issue is obscured by the issue yet again that... it is her body. She's the one who needs to feed and look after the foetus for 9 months. But I also find the idea that she can abort the foetus without his consent, with the father esentially having no say in the matter, abhorrant. That doesn't just apply to this rape-scenario btw.

Originally posted by Nephthys
IMO its just as much his child as hers. I don't think that pointing that out leads to the conclusion that he should have a 'yes/no' vote on the topic of abortion.

If you recognize his status as a victim of rape and remove his legal responsibilities to the rape-child, then his rights as the biological father and rape victim are already looked after, I would think.
Originally posted by dadudemon
However, should the man be allowed to force her to keep the child instead of aborting? What about that decision? I think this question is a lot more interesting, but I think I'd still side on the 'he gets no say, sorry buddy'.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Again the issue is obscured by the issue yet again that... it is her body. She's the one who needs to feed and look after the foetus for 9 months.

That's what is bothering me. Even if she was forced to carry, she can still abort it on her own (sure, it would be very dangerous, but she could try to do it).

Originally posted by Nephthys
But I also find the idea that she can abort the foetus without his consent, with the father esentially having no say in the matter, abhorrant.

Ditto.

What if the man has a strong religious belief that the "child" should not be aborted because it is innocent of the crime that was committed? That's like...what...hundreds of millions of people that believe that?

Originally posted by Nephthys
That doesn't just apply to this rape-scenario btw.

Indeed.



But, yes, I would concede to the female to get to decide.

Originally posted by Existere
I don't think that pointing that out leads to the conclusion that he should have a 'yes/no' vote on the topic of abortion.

Why not? You don't think that a man should have the right to decide what happens to his own child?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Why not? You don't think that a man should have the right to decide what happens to his own child? I would say that, if he bore no legal responsibility to the child, he bears no rights over it. If he chose to bear responsibility for the child (and if the rapist wanted to have the child) then he could care for it, but I also don't think that 'right to decide what happens to your kid' extends to aborting it. I view abortion as a perfectly moral choice because I think the mother's right to her body overrides the rights of the living-but-not-quite-human attachment growing inside of her. With that in mind, I don't see why a father would have a 'right' to abort a fetus, given that it's not his body, and the right to decide what happens to something shouldn't extend to killing it if not doing so costs him nothing (which happens to be the case here).

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
If a man "allowed" a woman to rape him, it wouldn't be rape.

Dude.

That's my point, dude. Kind of hard for a woman to rape a limp dick

Why is forcing a woman to get an abortion considered to be a no-no under any circumstance, out of curiosity?

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
That's my point, dude. Kind of hard for a woman to rape a limp dick You can't conciously control an erection. You'rr either stimulated or you're not.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You can't conciously control an erection. You'rr either stimulated or you're not.

I dunno, man...once you're past puberty you can do a pretty good job of consciously controlling when you get erections and when you don't. There seems to be a large set of eastern practices dedicated to consciously controlling your sexuality, too.

I don't think even the strongest monk could supress a boner while jessica biel was giving him a blowjob.

It'd be easier to set yourself on f-

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't think even the strongest monk could supress a boner while jessica biel was giving him a blowjob.

It'd be easier to set yourself on f-


1. Very nice choice. pained


2. That was wrong...so so so so wrong. You're going to imaginary hell.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't think even the strongest monk could supress a boner while jessica biel was giving him a blowjob.

It'd be easier to set yourself on f-

So a woman is now going to rape a man via BJ? Come on, dude, come on.

IT- IT HAPPENS IN HENTAI!

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You can't conciously control an erection. You'rr either stimulated or you're not. Orgasms are tougher to fire up than a mere erection. Erection =/= instant orgasm (well, for most, anyway).

Have you all forgotten that it is possible for any man's penis to be forced into a state of erection with a rubber band unless he has a serious medical condition?

That could be achieved even by Annie in Misery even if she appeared more realistic (ie with 100 lbs added and perhaps some teeth removed).

Originally posted by Bigon
Have you all forgotten that it is possible for any man's penis to be forced into a state of erection with a rubber band unless he has a serious medical condition?

That could be achieved even by Annie in Misery even if she appeared more realistic (ie with 100 lbs added and perhaps some teeth removed).

That's artificial then, like the viagra example and would be rape.

Can an enuch get an erection through mechanical means after the first year of his castration?

Because even enuchs are men!

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
That's my point, dude. Kind of hard for a woman to rape a limp dick

Foreign object rape is very common.

And in cases of perpetrators beating up their victim in order to make them comply, it is NOT necessary for victims of deviant men to prove that they put up maximum possible resistance, so it should not be necessary for victims of deviant women to prove that either, if they were beaten up to some extent in order to make them comply.

Originally posted by Stoic
I'm trying to figure out how a woman would rape a man? Aside from being tied up, and dildo raped, how does she rape a man if he is erect? An erection would mean that he is willing to penetrate the woman no matter what position that he may be in.

Yes. My thoughts exactly.

oh, this thread...

Originally posted by Shelterman
Yes. My thoughts exactly.

Erections are involuntary! At least open a text book before posting if you can't be bothered to read the original post!

A rubber band put round a penis will force it into a state of erection, no matter whether or not the victim is willing.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why is forcing a woman to get an abortion considered to be a no-no under any circumstance, out of curiosity?



I'm curious about that too, I know abortion is a tricky subject at the best of times but I feel the woman's side is given more credence than the man's. The argument 'you can't tell her what to do, it's her body' loses it's moral reasoning if she's used a rape scenario to get sperm from a man's body - I think men should have a say because it's the man's sperm that she stole. I feel the same way when there is clear deceit in a relationship situation also.

Just because the man may not have to pay for the child and not have to raise it doesn't factor in the emotional baggage or blackmail that may arise if the woman escapes prosecution. It's the same reason why some men do not want to donate sperm because they don't want that 'knock on the door' from a child they have no emotional connection with.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
I'm curious about that too, I know abortion is a tricky subject at the best of times but I feel the woman's side is given more credence than the man's. The argument 'you can't tell her what to do, it's her body' loses it's moral reasoning if she's used a rape scenario to get sperm from a man's body - I think men should have a say because it's the man's sperm that she stole. I feel the same way when there is clear deceit in a relationship situation also.

Just because the man may not have to pay for the child and not have to raise it doesn't factor in the emotional baggage or blackmail that may arise if the woman escapes prosecution. It's the same reason why some men do not want to donate sperm because they don't want that 'knock on the door' from a child they have no emotional connection with.

That seems pretty cold. So because the father doesn't want to be bothered by an annoying kid knocking on his door later in life that child has no right to life?

And what about the woman? Sure, she's a criminal, but that doesn't mean we can drag her into an operating room, strap her to a table, and perform operations on her. AT the very least, it would have to be done for a MUCH better reason than "I don't want some kid bothering me later in life".

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
I'm curious about that too, I know abortion is a tricky subject at the best of times but I feel the woman's side is given more credence than the man's.

Generally when you propose performing medical procedures on a person you give them more credence than others.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
The argument 'you can't tell her what to do, it's her body' loses it's moral reasoning if she's used a rape scenario to get sperm from a man's body - I think men should have a say because it's the man's sperm that she stole.

I don't see how it makes a practical difference. She's a rapist and should be punished for that, in anything beyond that she should be treated like anyone else.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Just because the man may not have to pay for the child and not have to raise it doesn't factor in the emotional baggage or blackmail that may arise if the woman escapes prosecution. It's the same reason why some men do not want to donate sperm because they don't want that 'knock on the door' from a child they have no emotional connection with.

That strikes me as an extremely dangerous precedent. You seem to be proposing that if a man changes his mind and decides he doesn't want kids he should have the option to force someone using his sperm to have an abortion.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Sure, she's a criminal, but that doesn't mean we can drag her into an operating room, strap her to a table, and perform operations on her. Why? We do that to men and women all the time when performing lethal injections.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why? We do that to men and women all the time when performing lethal injections.

Do you really think that's a good argument?

Originally posted by TacDavey
And what about the woman? Sure, she's a criminal, but that doesn't mean we can drag her into an operating room, strap her to a table, and perform operations on her.

I feel your comment would have been much more appropriate if you would have put "operations" in quotes. hmm

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you really think that's a good argument?

Dunno...seems to fit. A very small amount of people are killed by lethal injection. A very small amount of women are forced to get an abortion. They both wear shoes, too.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That strikes me as an extremely dangerous precedent. You seem to be proposing that if a man changes his mind and decides he doesn't want kids he should have the option to force someone using his sperm to have an abortion.

Your perspective on his post seems contrived and borderline irrelevant to his point. I get what you're trying to do, though. Your argument could be made better by mentioning something about a person wanting the moisture back from their breath after exhaling. That seems as legit as a man wanting his sperm back after he's ejaculated. But do we own our DNA to such an extreme point like Lord is alluding?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dunno...seems to fit. A very small amount of people are killed by lethal injection. A very small amount of women are forced to get an abortion. They both wear shoes, too.

I imagine TacDavey is opposed to capital punishment as well. At the very least is fails at Hume's is/ought gap.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your perspective on his post seems contrived and borderline irrelevant to his point. I get what you're trying to do, though. Your argument could be made better by mentioning something about a person wanting the moisture back from their breath after exhaling. That seems as legit as a man wanting his sperm back after he's ejaculated. But do we own our DNA to such an extreme point like Lord is alluding?

My issue is pretty much the same as TacDavey's, Lord seems to make the argument that the man can force an abortion because he doesn't want to be bothered by kids. In the case of rape is this understandable (though I still disagree with it) but the justification he builds the argument from isn't limited to that condition.

Using a drug to prevent implantation (or taking back sperm he donated) seems to be within the realm of reasonablity to me. He should have legal claim to his actual sperm.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My issue is pretty much the same as TacDavey's, Lord seems to make the argument that the man can force an abortion because he doesn't want to be bothered by kids. In the case of rape is this understandable (though I still disagree with it) but the justification he builds the argument from isn't limited to that condition.

His idea about it seems legit, though. People do pull the guilt trip thing sometimes. Get the man drunk, have sex with him to get pregnant? It has happened. Who doesn't know a situation like that? That's legal blackmail. So, yes, the guilt trips suck. Lesson learned: don't put your dick in places you don't want it to go when you're sober (an effective male contraceptive is STRONGLY needed).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Using a drug to prevent implantation (or taking back sperm he donated) seems to be within the realm of reasonablity to me. He should have legal claim to his actual sperm.

It seems unreasonable to me. It's not a donation if you have the option to take it back, right? It's called being a dick. I'm sure people sign papers that relinquish rights...not too sure, though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you really think that's a good argument? Can you provide a non-arbitrary argument for why strapping someone to a table (in many cases against their will) and pumping them full of chemicals until they die, is better than strapping someone to a table and giving them an abortion?

Obviously, if you're against capital punishment, then the connection is meaningless. He never stated as such, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
His idea about it seems legit, though. People do pull the guilt trip thing sometimes. Get the man drunk, have sex with him to get pregnant? It has happened. Who doesn't know a situation like that? That's legal blackmail. So, yes, the guilt trips suck. Lesson learned: don't put your dick in places you don't want it to go when you're sober (an effective male contraceptive is STRONGLY needed).

You've changed topics completely.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It seems unreasonable to me. It's not a donation if you have the option to take it back, right? It's called being a dick. I'm sure people sign papers that relinquish rights...not too sure, though.

Being able to take something back doesn't make it not a donation. I believe people have sued charities to get back donations they made when they felt that the charity used their money improperly. Once you've signed whatever relevant papers there are the legal situation becomes much more complex (there is a legal argument that it is illegal to sign away rights and any contract that attempts removes them is invalid).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've changed topics completely.


Lord: "Just because the man may not have to pay for the child and not have to raise it doesn't factor in the emotional baggage or blackmail that may arise if the woman escapes prosecution. It's the same reason why some men do not want to donate sperm because they don't want that 'knock on the door' from a child they have no emotional connection with."

Sym:"That strikes me as an extremely dangerous precedent. You seem to be proposing that if a man changes his mind and decides he doesn't want kids he should have the option to force someone using his sperm to have an abortion."

dadudemon: "Your perspective on his post seems contrived and borderline irrelevant to his point. I get what you're trying to do, though. Your argument could be made better by mentioning something about a person wanting the moisture back from their breath after exhaling. That seems as legit as a man wanting his sperm back after he's ejaculated. But do we own our DNA to such an extreme point like Lord is alluding?"

Sym: "Lord seems to make the argument that the man can force an abortion because he doesn't want to be bothered by kids. In the case of rape is this understandable (though I still disagree with it) but the justification he builds the argument from isn't limited to that condition."

dadudemon: "His idea about it seems legit, though. People do pull the guilt trip thing sometimes. Get the man drunk, have sex with him to get pregnant? It has happened. Who doesn't know a situation like that? That's legal blackmail. So, yes, the guilt trips suck."

Emphasis added.




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Once you've signed whatever relevant papers there are the legal situation becomes much more complex (there is a legal argument that it is illegal to sign away rights and any contract that attempts removes them is invalid).

Yeah...just thought that you couldn't "sue" for rights after you signed away your rights to your sperm.

Well certainly in any non rape situation a man should not be entitled to force anyone else to have an abortion

I do not think that any woman should be FORCED to have an abortion whatever the circumstances, however, if a man or boy is raped or is the victim of statutory rape he should certainly not have to pay child support.

However, this thread is dealing with the hypothetical. All yanks on this thread know that in the US the courts don't care as long as SOMEONE is on the hook for child support - and those in the UK like me will all know that UK law doesn't even touch the issue of female on male rape. In fact, our laws are so haphazard and out of date by turns, that it was not even possible to prosecute a perpetrator of male on male rape until 1995!

So it's the Demi Moore Disclosure scenario?

Micheal Douglas will have a hard time demanding the court force Demi to have an abortion.

Sure he'll escape child support. But she'll get to keep the kid unless Douglas demands custody.....which he'll surely get. If he can prove it.

If he can, good on him. It's kind if hard to believe a man can't only screw a woman he doesn't want too (not a hard scenario to imagine when blackmail is involved.) but also impregnate her! (Guy should know better) If the woman is so hot that you have to go all the way then you get what's coming .....literally.

If the crime the guy has done is so incriminating that a woman can blackmail him into impregnating her then. Yes. He has to supply child support to the kid. Messed up.

It's all a mixed bag really.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That seems pretty cold. So because the father doesn't want to be bothered by an annoying kid knocking on his door later in life that child has no right to life?

And what about the woman? Sure, she's a criminal, but that doesn't mean we can drag her into an operating room, strap her to a table, and perform operations on her. AT the very least, it would have to be done for a MUCH better reason than "I don't want some kid bothering me later in life".

I never said that, you are taking my comments about the sperm donor situation out of my post and applying it to the main issue.

So, equally you think it's right for a woman to deceive and cheat her way to a pregnancy by any means using a man's body when it's perfectly legal for her to go to a sperm bank and use that?

The only reason that some women decieve men in this way is to use emotional blackmail just because a certain man might not have wanted a child with them. They can use the child in question to disrupt a man's future relationships, his career, where he lives, his whole life basically.

My previous post was predicated on two criminal situations:

1. A woman has raped a man, by any means and is pregnant as a result of him.

2. A woman has knowingly tampered with his condoms and/or gone of her birth control pill without - and this is crucial - telling him about it. The only reason she would do this is if he didn't want kids. That is wrong - completely wrong and you're telling me the man just has to accept being a father when the purpose of using contraception in the first place is to ensure against a child.

Oh, and everyone who is decrying forced abortion no doubt have the same concerns about forced chemical castration on men, because as we all know, only men are sex offenders/rapists

Isn't chemical castration supposed to be an alternative to prison ie a punishment the felon can choose...? If he likes, can't he decide to do time in prison instead?

In your numbered scenarios (2) is nothing whatever like (1). In (2) the women merely lied. In the hypothetical scenario of (1) she is a depraved monster. The two are not really comparable.

Originally posted by Bigon
Isn't chemical castration supposed to be an alternative to prison ie a punishment the felon can choose...? If he likes, can't he decide to do time in prison instead?

In your numbered scenarios (2) is nothing whatever like (1). In (2) the women merely lied. In the hypothetical scenario of (1) she is a depraved monster. The two are not really comparable.

I believe it depends on the country or state concerning chemical castration, but it, and the death penalty (which I agree is not just limited to men of course), are other pratices of forced measures which are welcomed by some people who may conversely disagree with abortion.

Now you might say two of those are penalties for crimes but mistakes are made none the less.

On your second point I agree, they are not the same in terms of rape, but the practice of tampering with contraceptives is illegal and I would think that you could equally challenge the mental state of anyone resorting to that also.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
I never said that, you are taking my comments about the sperm donor situation out of my post and applying it to the main issue.

So, equally you think it's right for a woman to deceive and cheat her way to a pregnancy by any means using a man's body when it's perfectly legal for her to go to a sperm bank and use that?

Of course not. Why would you say that? It isn't right to do that at all, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to someone who has committed a crime.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
The only reason that some women decieve men in this way is to use emotional blackmail just because a certain man might not have wanted a child with them. They can use the child in question to disrupt a man's future relationships, his career, where he lives, his whole life basically.

This is a dangerous line of reasoning. You are saying that because the woman MIGHT blackmail the person later in life, that person has the right to force her to have an abortion? Until she actually DOES blackmail the man, you cannot punish her or the baby for the blackmail. If/When she blackmails the person, steps should be taken to punish her, and the child should be found a better home. You cannot punish someone for a crime they have yet to commit.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
My previous post was predicated on two criminal situations:

1. A woman has raped a man, by any means and is pregnant as a result of him.

2. A woman has knowingly tampered with his condoms and/or gone of her birth control pill without - and this is crucial - telling him about it. The only reason she would do this is if he didn't want kids. That is wrong - completely wrong and you're telling me the man just has to accept being a father when the purpose of using contraception in the first place is to ensure against a child.

No. He doesn't have to accept being a father. In that case, I don't think he should legally be forced to support the child. But that does NOT mean he has the right to force the abortion of the child.

Tacdavey, how do you feel about capital punishment? Life sentences, execurions, etc.

If a women rapes a man all power too her...lol

In new york they had these all girl gangs where they would gang up on a man and rape him. Not sure where I read it or saw the story but I remember facts.

Were they hot women? Cuz then it's not rape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_H_wonJFm4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr_iWYq8A7M&feature=related

this video was just in there..lol

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Tacdavey, how do you feel about capital punishment? Life sentences, execurions, etc.

I tend to be against capital punishment. Though I don't think it's quite the same thing in this case.

Care to extrapolate?

I don't understand the question on how he is supposed to extrapolate.

That's because you're a dummy.

Originally posted by TacDavey
This is a dangerous line of reasoning. You are saying that because the woman MIGHT blackmail the person later in life, that person has the right to force her to have an abortion? Until she actually DOES blackmail the man, you cannot punish her or the baby for the blackmail. If/When she blackmails the person, steps should be taken to punish her, and the child should be found a better home. You cannot punish someone for a crime they have yet to commit.



No. He doesn't have to accept being a father. In that case, I don't think he should legally be forced to support the child. But that does NOT mean he has the right to force the abortion of the child.

Call me me crazy but if the woman is demented enough to illegally tamper with contraception then I think they have it within them to resort to blackmail or other such things in the future. It's a crime, and would have more far-reaching effects on the man's life than hers, especially if she avoids prosecution.

She gets what she wants (the baby, possible money from the man, even fame if the man is famous or successful) while the man has to suffer with issues of trusting women in the future, being followed/harrassed by the woman wanting him to acknowledge the child, being considered cold if he doesn't respond, being turned off having children which may affect relationships in the future, having no voice to get back at her because she'll play the wounded single mother and have the courts/media eating out of her hands etc. Just not having to support the child isn't the point; and if he can't prove she did it in court but it turns out she admits it in private he would then have no grounds not to pay.

I'm not saying the woman should be forced to abort based on an assumption, I'm saying when it's been definitely proven that she did it (whether rape or the tampering of contraceptives) the man who made the baby too and should have rights, should have the right to argue in a court for it to aborted.

Men get forcibly chemically castrated for a particular sexual crime and this is no different in my view. They are both sexual crimes, could even term them sexual assaults yet one gender gets something done to them to discourage them re-offending, but the other gets sympathy and understanding about their 'bodies'. Try and guess which one is which.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
would have more far-reaching effects on the man's life than hers,
How so?

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Call me me crazy but if the woman is demented enough to illegally tamper with contraception then I think they have it within them to resort to blackmail or other such things in the future. It's a crime, and would have more far-reaching effects on the man's life than hers, especially if she avoids prosecution.

That's you opinion, and as far as I know, not backed up by hard evidence. But even if it WAS the case that women who tamper with birth control, on average, tend to blackmail people (which I do not accept by the way), that still does not excuse punishing someone for a crime that you think they'll probably commit. If/When the mother decides to resort to blackmail, or any other form of extortion, you can punish her then in a just way. Forcing her to abort her child is not just, in any circumstance. Certainly not because he's worried that she MIGHT use the child poorly later in life. That is simply not a valid reason to allow such a thing.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
She gets what she wants (the baby, possible money from the man, even fame if the man is famous or successful) while the man has to suffer with issues of trusting women in the future, being followed/harrassed by the woman wanting him to acknowledge the child, being considered cold if he doesn't respond, being turned off having children which may affect relationships in the future, having no voice to get back at her because she'll play the wounded single mother and have the courts/media eating out of her hands etc. Just not having to support the child isn't the point; and if he can't prove she did it in court but it turns out she admits it in private he would then have no grounds not to pay.

Hold on, you are worried that his image in society, especially concerning women, would cause him stress if he allows the child to be born? And you think that if he forces a woman to have an abortion against her will, he will be seen as, what, the paragon of women's rights? In fact, I would argue that he would receive FAR more notice and harassment from forcing an abortion, ESPECIALLY from women.

Not that it matters considering that how people react to something does not, in any way, determine if it is just or not.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
I'm not saying the woman should be forced to abort based on an assumption, I'm saying when it's been definitely proven that she did it (whether rape or the tampering of contraceptives) the man who made the baby too and should have rights, should have the right to argue in a court for it to aborted.

You basically just said the same thing. He should be allowed to attempt to force the woman to have an abortion against her will.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Men get forcibly chemically castrated for a particular sexual crime and this is no different in my view. They are both sexual crimes, could even term them sexual assaults yet one gender gets something done to them to discourage them re-offending, but the other gets sympathy and understanding about their 'bodies'. Try and guess which one is which.

This is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what happens to men, this isn't a "which sex has it worse off" topic. You cannot justify something because "they're doing it too..." It's called a "you too" fallacy.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Care to extrapolate?

You mean between capitol punishment and forced abortion? I think the main difference is that the subject lives through one experience and not the other. They live with all the emotional and psychological damage. That's almost like saying that if you believe in capitol punishment you should also believe rape is also an acceptable punishment for women who commit crimes.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's you opinion, and as far as I know, not backed up by hard evidence. But even if it WAS the case that women who tamper with birth control, on average, tend to blackmail people (which I do not accept by the way), that still does not excuse punishing someone for a crime that you think they'll probably commit. If/When the mother decides to resort to blackmail, or any other form of extortion, you can punish her then in a just way. Forcing her to abort her child is not just, in any circumstance. Certainly not because he's worried that she MIGHT use the child poorly later in life. That is simply not a valid reason to allow such a thing.

Hold on, you are worried that his image in society, especially concerning women, would cause him stress if he allows the child to be born? And you think that if he forces a woman to have an abortion against her will, he will be seen as, what, the paragon of women's rights? In fact, I would argue that he would receive FAR more notice and harassment from forcing an abortion, ESPECIALLY from women.

You basically just said the same thing. He should be allowed to attempt to force the woman to have an abortion against her will.

This is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what happens to men, this isn't a "which sex has it worse off" topic. You cannot justify something because "they're doing it too..." It's called a "you too" fallacy.

1.Once again, this isn't about an assumed crime or a 'judge her before she does it' situation this is about a situation where she has been caught, bang to rights in a court of law doing this to a man. Only then. If you don't get it this time well I can't help you.


2.That's kind of my point, and you're missing the whole issue of the fact that when this woman is brought out into the public as a guilty, deceitful trickster she will get zero support from other women, you know, decent ones who don't tamper with contraceptives and just find an agreeable partner or go to a sperm bank. No man would ever sleep with her again either. The only support she'll get is from anti-abortionists and even then not much if she's a convict. It's all about image you see.

3. See number 1. Then see the sentence 'this is a situation where she has been caught, bang to rights in a court of law doing this to a man. Only then.' Please stop with this tunnel vision approach to reading my comments, like you did with the sperm donor tangent you grossly took out of context in my first post.

4. Aha, not relevant eh? Typical response when you don't have a comeback. It's a perfectly legitimate argument - a man has to undergo chemical castration when he commits sexual crimes but a woman can commit them and benefit with children but get away with it, very much so if she avoids prison which is most likely. Your comment ' It doesn't matter what happens to men' typifies my exact reasoning, a man's body is fair game to do things to but a woman's isn't. Why is that? Oh they are live givers and men have nothing to do with the process at all

The way you are going on TacDavey people must think I want forced hysterectomies.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You mean between capitol punishment and forced abortion? I think the main difference is that the subject lives through one experience and not the other. They live with all the emotional and psychological damage.

So the sheer terror of being strapped down to a table or into a chair knowing that someone's going kill you and end your existence forever is worse than an abortion where the person is going to go through a routine operation and live afterwards? And if she is guilty of raping or tricking a man into birth she should have no complaints.

just when I thought this thread had hit its low point...

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
1.Once again, this isn't about an assumed crime or a 'judge her before she does it' situation this is about a situation where she has been caught, bang to rights in a court of law doing this to a man. Only then. If you don't get it this time well I can't help you.

I understand you. But you are saying that the child should be allowed to be aborted because it MIGHT be used later in life to harm the man, correct? The crime the woman has been caught doing is rape, not black mail. Your argument suggests that blackmail is a legitimate reason to allow forced abortion. The problem with your argument is that, as of her arrest, there hasn't been any blackmail yet. There has only been rape. Your entire reasoning behind forcing someone to have an abortion rests on the idea of that woman performing an action later in life that she may or may not ever commit.


Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
2.That's kind of my point, and you're missing the whole issue of the fact that when this woman is brought out into the public as a guilty, deceitful trickster she will get zero support from other women, you know, decent ones who don't tamper with contraceptives and just find an agreeable partner or go to a sperm bank. No man would ever sleep with her again either. The only support she'll get is from abortionists and even then not much if she's a convict. It's all about image you see.

This has nothing to do with what we were just talking about. You tried to make the claim that if the man allows the woman to have the child, there will be social backlash for the man because women will hound him and try to get him to take care of the child.

1.) This doesn't make forced abortions okay. Things aren't right or wrong based on how a group of people will react to them.

2.) The social backlash from a forced abortion would be far greater than that of allowing birth. Especially in the very group of people you tried to claim would be the main instigators.

Unless you were presupposing that in the birth example the public doesn't know about the deception and in the abortion example they do. Because if that's the case, couldn't the very same thing be said about the birth example?

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
3. See number 1. Then see the sentence 'this is a situation where she has been caught, bang to rights in a court of law doing this to a man. Only then.' Please stop with this tunnel vision approach to reading my comments, like you did with the sperm donor tangent you grossly took out of context in my first post.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I fully accept that they know she raped him. You are trying to justify punishment for blackmail, or the potential for blackmail, which IS a crime she has yet to commit. The punishment for rape is jail time.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
4. Aha, not relevant eh? Typical response when you don't have a comeback. It's a perfectly legitimate argument - a man has to undergo chemical castration when he commits sexual crimes but a woman can commit them and benefit with children but get away with it, very much so if she avoids prison which is most likely. Your comment ' It doesn't matter what happens to men' typifies my exact reasoning, a man's body is fair game to do things to but a woman's isn't. Why is that? Oh they are live givers and men have nothing to with the process at all

The way you are going on TacDavey people must think I want forced hysterectomies.

Actually, I'm not saying it because I don't have a come back. That IS my comeback. The fact of the matter is your argument in this case is fallacious. Here is a link describing the very fallacy you are committing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

You are saying that forced abortion is okay because forced castration is being done. But the two are completely separate issues. One is not right or wrong based off the other. Forced castration is right or it's wrong all on it's own. And forced abortion is right or it's wrong all on it's own.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
So the sheer terror of being strapped down to a table or into a chair knowing that someone's going kill you and end your existence forever is worse than an abortion where the person is going to go through a routine operation and live afterwards? And if she is guilty of raping or tricking a man into birth she should have no complaints.

One person has to live the rest of their life with the psychological and emotion damage done to them. Again, if you are comparing capitol punishment to forced abortions, can't you also make the comparison between capitol punishment and rape? The two are simply not the same thing.

That argument doesn't make any sense. Tons of women get abortions all the time and don't suffer "psychological and emotional damage".

If it was deliberated by way of a psych evaluation that sentencing the woman to a life time of prison would cause her massive psychological trauma, would you suddenly be in favor of not giving her a life sentence? As, your entire hinges upon the act being "against her will", hence the comparison to rape. Well what if she doesn't to go to jail at all? Suddenly, forcing her to go to jail is the same as raping her.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I understand you. But you are saying that the child should be allowed to be aborted because it MIGHT be used later in life to harm the man, correct? The crime the woman has been caught doing is rape, not black mail. Your argument suggests that blackmail is a legitimate reason to allow forced abortion. The problem with your argument is that, as of her arrest, there hasn't been any blackmail yet. There has only been rape. Your entire reasoning behind forcing someone to have an abortion rests on the idea of that woman performing an action later in life that she may or may not ever commit.


You seem to be misunderstanding me. I fully accept that they know she raped him. You are trying to justify punishment for blackmail, or the potential for blackmail, which IS a crime she has yet to commit. The punishment for rape is jail time.



You keep mentioning blackmail. Why? Again, you are ignoring the main part and focusing on a side issue I brought up as an additional point only.

I never said I wanted forced abortions for the blackmail but only for a child she has gotten by rape or a child she has gotten by tampering with contraceptives and/or omitting the fact she's gone off birth control when it's completely understood that the man doesn't want any children and SHE SEEMS happy to go along with it, but then flips out, gets broody and doesn't involve the man in her immoral solution.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You mean between capitol punishment and forced abortion? I think the main difference is that the subject lives through one experience and not the other. They live with all the emotional and psychological damage. That's almost like saying that if you believe in capitol punishment you should also believe rape is also an acceptable punishment for women who commit crimes.

I would rather live with emotional and psychological damage than not live at all, to be honest. I can't think of forcing a woman to get an abortion as being "worse" than killing someone, honestly. Both are operations being performed on someone against their will, as Blax said.

Your "punishing women by rape" analogy is frankly faulty, the punishment by rape would serve no purpose, it would just be an act of cruelty as a punishment, rather than removing someone from society like prison or, more permanently, the death penalty do. In this case, Lord Shadow Z's argument is that a woman who has performed a sexual crime and "illegally" gotten herself pregnant, so he proposes an abortion because of the negative far-reaching effects it could have on the male victim's life.

While I am not entirely sure I agree with the notion that the woman should be forced to get an abortion, I felt like being an ******* and responding to this post of your's anyway, because I disagreed with your rationale in your replies.

Originally posted by TacDavey
One person has to live the rest of their life with the psychological and emotion damage done to them.

What about the psychological, emotional and physical damage done to a man who is forcibly chemically castrated. Oh, that's right, he deserved it for his sexual crime he committed, oh wait...

Have you never heard the term 'abortion used as a form of birth control'? Women who use abortions as contraceptive measures when they keep getting pregnant over and over again.Yeah, immense psychological and emotional damage.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That argument doesn't make any sense. Tons of women get abortions all the time and don't suffer "psychological and emotional damage".

Likely because they get them willingly. That isn't to say every woman who is forced to have an abortion would suffer psychological or emotional problems, but there is a very real possibility. Especially if the woman is emotionally attached to the child.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
If it was deliberated by way of a psych evaluation that sentencing the woman to a life time of prison would cause her massive psychological trauma, would you suddenly be in favor of not giving her a life sentence? As, your entire hinges upon the act being "against her will", hence the comparison to rape. Well what if she doesn't to go to jail at all? Suddenly, forcing her to go to jail is the same as raping her.

Not at all. My comparison isn't the fact that it is "against her will". In fact, the comparison to rape was meant to show the invalidity of the argument. That's my point. Capitol Punishment isn't the same as rape. At all. The same way Capitol Punishment isn't the same as forced abortions.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
You keep mentioning blackmail. Why? Again, you are ignoring the main part and focusing on a side issue I brought up as an additional point only.

Because that is your reasoning behind advocating forced abortions, is it not? The child might come back to cause the man harm later in life, either through blackmail or whatever. Is that not the reason behind aborting the child? My point still stands, I was just using blackmail to avoid listing everything.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
I never said I wanted forced abortions for the blackmail but only for a child she has gotten by rape or a child she has gotten by tampering with contraceptives and/or omitting the fact she's gone off birth control when it's completely understood that the man doesn't want any children and SHE SEEMS happy to go along with it, but then flips out, gets broody and doesn't involve the man in her immoral solution.

The man doesn't have to have any children. I already said he shouldn't be legally required to care for the child. Since we've already determined that the man not wanting to care for a child does not require abortion, the only other reason you have brought up is the chance that the child will come back to haunt him later in life.

Just so we're clear before we go on...

The reasons why a man should get to force an abortion:

1.) The man should not have to care for a child.

This has already been discussed. The man doesn't have to care for the child unless he wants to. Otherwise, he has no legal responsibility to care for it in any way. No need for abortion even being an option in this case.

2.) The woman might blackmail him later in life.

This isn't a certainty by any means. As I have said, you cannot punish someone for something they have yet to commit. And the child certainly shouldn't suffer for something someone else might possible do. Forced abortion should not be allowed for this reason either.

3.) The man might get heckled by women demanding he care for the child.

This one just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For one thing, you cannot force an abortion on someone because someone else is giving you a hard time. It's completely unjust to punish someone because someone else entirely is acting inappropriately. Furthermore, I would say that there would be a far greater backlash from the female community if he forced an woman to get an abortion against her will. Women don't like that. So, forced abortion cannot be allowed for this reason either.

These are the reasons you have provided as I understand them. Feel free to provide any I may have missed, but so far none of them justifies forced abortions.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I would rather live with emotional and psychological damage than not live at all, to be honest. I can't think of forcing a woman to get an abortion as being "worse" than killing someone, honestly. Both are operations being performed on someone against their will, as Blax said.

I don't think psychological damage is worse than killing someone either. The point wasn't to show that forced abortions are worse than capitol punishment, but that forced abortions and capitol punishment are two different things. The only thing about them that is the same is that the process is done against the person's will, which, as the rape example was suppose to point out, does not mean they are the same thing at all. Rape and capitol punishment, as well as forced abortions, are done against the person's will. But they are not the same at all, are they?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Your "punishing women by rape" analogy is frankly faulty, the punishment by rape would serve no purpose, it would just be an act of cruelty as a punishment, rather than removing someone from society like prison or, more permanently, the death penalty do. In this case, Lord Shadow Z's argument is that a woman who has performed a sexual crime and "illegally" gotten herself pregnant, so he proposes an abortion because of the negative far-reaching effects it could have on the male victim's life.

The rape example was meant to show that capitol punishment is different from forced abortions since blax suggested that if you believe in capitol punishment you cannot be against forced abortions. The rape analogy was not meant to combat any of Lord Shadow Z's arguments.

Originally posted by NemeBro
While I am not entirely sure I agree with the notion that the woman should be forced to get an abortion, I felt like being an ******* and responding to this post of your's anyway, because I disagreed with your rationale in your replies.

That's a common misconception. In reality, everyone actually agrees with me deep down, they just don't fully realize it yet.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
What about the psychological, emotional and physical damage done to a man who is forcibly chemically castrated. Oh, that's right, he deserved it for his sexual crime he committed, oh wait...

You are still committing the you too fallacy. Ignoring the fact that I called you out on this fallacy will not change the fact that it is, in fact, a fallacious argument. Forced chemical castration is a separate issue, and the simple fact that it is being done does not, in any way, show that forced abortions are acceptable. Thus, it has absolutely no place in this debate at any point. Period.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Have you never heard the term 'abortion used as a form of birth control'? Women who use abortions as contraceptive measures when they keep getting pregnant over and over again.Yeah, immense psychological and emotional damage.

That's like saying that because women have sex regularly, there should be no psychological damage in raping them. Is that what you're saying?

man likes sex. and some women dont. (as in she chose not to have sex with certain men)

a man gets "raped by a woman" lucky man.
unconcious man got raped and got the girl pregnant. then child support issue? hmm! brain got stomped on that one.

a woman gets raped by a man unlucky woman.

Again this is all only about the hypothetical given so few even though that rape with female perpetrators is within the limits of the possible.

Just getting man on woman rape recognised as a crime was a victory for civilisation and even that could be lost Civilisation takes centuries to build and can be overturned so easily.

You find her and you rape her back! An eye for an eye!

Originally posted by juggerman
You find her and you rape her back! An eye for an eye!

But...but....


What if you she is not good rapin'? They must at least have a purdy mouth.

Rubbish. Two wrongs never make a right.

And for the sake of the hypothetical, I suppose a scenario within the limits of the possible is for a man to be raped when in a coma by a nurse or a female doctor, since that would violate professional behaviour hence be an obvious case of violation.

Why should the man not demand an abortion (unless he has a change of heart)? She conceived his sperm without his consent.

Although I can see some problems arising from this like if he wants the baby but not her, and is unsure if he'll ever find another mate. As in, she didn't wanna get pregnant, but the man wants a child to raise. I mean, what the **** do you do then?

Nope. If she's ugly you just turn her around and enter from behind. Backdoor is ok here too seeing as how she violated you 1st. Now you're one up



Maybe but it can sure make you feel better

How do I make a women to rape me?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
How do I make a women to rape me?

Forcing someone to rape you? That type of question is not consistent within itself.


It's like asking, "How can I make blue turn into potato?"

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
How do I make a women to rape me?
Reading this sentence is the closest I've come to understanding Poshlost--at least in a modern American context.

It's scary how many people have no idea what "rape" actually means. If you volunteer for sex then it IS NOT rape.

Originally posted by Bigon
It's scary how many people have no idea what "rape" actually means. If you volunteer for sex then it IS NOT rape. Okay


What if I pay a hot babe to rape me 2 months from now and forgot about intentionally so I can get raped?

facepalm

Originally posted by Omega Vision
facepalm Its not volunteer if I dont remember paying the random girl to do with. Im going to fight it when she does it.

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2840/putinfacepalms.png

I can't breathe crylaugh

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Its not volunteer if I dont remember paying the random girl to do with. Im going to fight it when she does it.

Sure, if you hired this gal (she even has the "you gonna get raped" look):


http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/10/109634/2096946-female-body-builder-jemblog-6_super.png

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Reading this sentence is the closest I've come to understanding Poshlost--at least in a modern American context. I like that word.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Its not volunteer if I dont remember paying the random girl to do with. Im going to fight it when she does it.

Visit a dominatrix.

Nah, Colossus-Big C needs a tranny.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
I can't breathe crylaugh

Well in civilised societies, people who are mentally handicapped in whatever way cannot legally give meaningful consent so... does colossus c fit those criteria? If he does, then according to the letter of the law in CIVILISED societies he could technically be raped even if he asked for it.

Female rapists are rare. I think they have a psychological disorder.

Originally posted by crystalmaden
Female rapists are rare. I think they have a psychological disorder.

And male rapists are completely mentally ok?

Originally posted by juggerman
And male rapists are completely mentally ok?

What do you define as "OK"?

Originally posted by dadudemon
What do you define as "OK"?

Not a rapist

Rapist Are A Piece Of Shit Scum Of The Earth, Almost On The Same Level As Homosexual Men.

Slip deeper into that closet all you like, your inner homosexual likes it when you resist.

What exactly would make you think I am Gay?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Rapist Are A Piece Of Shit Scum Of The Earth, Almost On The Same Level As Homosexual Men. Why do you think gay men are worse than rapists?

And why are gay women exempt from your loathing?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Why do you think gay men are worse than rapists?

And why are gay women exempt from your loathing?

1. Because they like men instead of women

2. Because they are women.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
What exactly would make you think I am Gay?

Your absurd dislike/intolerance of homosexuals. This phenomena, it is known.