Statutory Rape: Forcing a boy to pay child support to his rapist’s baby is as wrong as denying women the right to an abortion when raped and/or granting child rights visitation to the woman’s rapist.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 189 points190 points191 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tmomp 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bakedpotato486 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Greg_W_Allan 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lostvayne12 51 points52 points53 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dasgluk 34 points35 points36 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheKobraSnake 22 points23 points24 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MadameDufarge 15 points16 points17 points 6 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

This is from 1993, and while I would normally argue that citing older articles can be misleading about the current state of mens rights, this case has subsequently been used as a precedent in later decisions affecting other men (although without further searching, not sure how recently and where in the US).

If you can't view the paywalled article, here is the Wikipedia summary of the case. The baby's mother was not charged with statutory rape as OP's title indicates, since she was also a minor at the time (17); she was charged with a lesser offense as a juvenile. Unfortunately, no idea if this is consistent with how male offenders were charged for similar crimes in that jurisdiction during the late eighties when the crime took place.

While I get that the Court's decision is meant to serve in the best interest of the child born as a result of a rape, I think that welfare programs should be utilized instead in cases like this. This would ensure that both the child is taken care of and that the victim-parent is not further victimized financially.

Edit: correction to the above. She was originally charged with statutory rape but was convicted of a lesser crime.

[–]genkernels 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MadameDufarge 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phollie[S] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MadameDufarge 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Phollie[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I mean by our definition these days we can look back and easily ID that as statutory rape. Back then things weren’t as clear (due to toxic masculinity and gender roles fucking up everything).

I mean most of what r/MensRights posts are these days are discussing gender role stereotypes without even knowing it. Perpetuating the false narrative that men are strong and do not need protected, only stands to put men into vulnerable positions.

Also, I’m waiting for the guys on here to realize many of them are doing the same gender baiting as feminists and enforcing the revolting stereotypes of men (ie that they deep down hate women, seek to dominate them spiritually, intellectually, physically, and sexually) which is really not true and kind of fucked up that men have to be seen as over-aggressive violent conquerors.

[–]Criket9 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Matt_the_Alien 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bougieboyy 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rabel111 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

This precedent, or similar precedents still apply today. The view of the courts is that child support is for the child, not the mother, and therefore, as the child did not commit the crime, the crime does not extinguish the right to support. This has morphed in recent times into the "best interests of the child"; i.e. it doesn't matter what crime the mother has committed, the child must not suffer, even if that results in an injustice for the father (a child themselves at the time of conception).

This is one of many instances where mothers are able to hide behind the "best interests of the child" test, and get away with just about anything, including early release or from jail or non-custodial sentences for serious violent crimes. Interestingly, similar shielding from the law is not extended to fathers. That's the overarching sexism of the law. Further, while the law provides for abortions for women who have been raped, there is no protection for boys who are raped. They continue to be victims of their rapist's choices.

[–]Phollie[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree with everything but that last bit. Alabama did away with protecting rape victims just last year. They are no longer allowing safe, legal abortions to women in Alabama who have been raped. Alabama 2019. I know it sounds like not a huge deal, why not just go to a different state? Well a lot of people cannot afford that. And many states (6-7) are down to one abortion provider for the entire state Source). So they are already waaay overbooked.

Also, multiple states have been passing laws restricting the time-frame of abortion. Women have abortions after 10 weeks, whether they were raped or not d/t so called “heart-beat bills.” The latest a woman can know she is pregnant is around 4 weeks after conception. And many might not think so because they do not know the failure rates of condoms, birth control, and Plan B. Plan B doesn’t work in women over 160lbs.

The earliest a heart beat should be heard in all cases of pregnancy is 12 weeks. In practice the 10-week restriction pretty much prevents people who qualify from getting the procedure. Because there are also legally instituted “waiting periods” after meeting with the abortion provider. This delay gives the mother “adequate time to make a decision” on something she has already decided and discussed with her PCP (in order to get the referral in the first place).

[–]rabel111 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Phollie[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pondernautics 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Phollie[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]hork23 -11 points-10 points-9 points 6 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]thefudmaster 17 points18 points19 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daft_Vader69 -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]jasperhaan 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daft_Vader69 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]NefariouslySly 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Okay, so I'm going to copy and paste a comment I sent to someone else but it was on the same topic and should hopefully make you think about what you wrote. Before I do though, I would like to iterate that this is a men's rights sub and not one about abortion bein right or wrong. Nor am I implying that I have the perfect solution to the issue.

Copied text below:

There is a gap in your logic. Why and how does being being able to survive outside the womb factually equate to it being a "child?" Why does labeling something a "child" mean we can't abort it? Is someone even considered to be alive if they have no thoughts, life experiences, no feelings of pain, happy, anger etc, and conscious connections to its surroundings? What would you consider to be hurting another "human?" If they can't feel anything, if their conscience doesn't exist and and they are not even aware of a future since they have no brain, how can you take anything away from them?

No offense, but you are equating your moral beliefs to facts and then trying to force them on others.

Pro life likely, without doing heavy research, stems from religions that think we are some mystical thing called a "soul" when in fact (as far as we know) we are a brain, a conglomeration of biological material.

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NefariouslySly 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Unless I'm misunderstanding the comment chain, you were arguing against abortions. You stated that it was killing a human being who was still in the womb. The implication I take from this is fertilized egg = human being. You also equated having human dna to being human thus fetus =human. To sum up, because a fetus has human dna, aborting it is equivalent to committing murder.

Now, I presented some difficult philosophical questions that throw into question what being human even is. ie: is that fetus considered as much a human as you or I and how do we determine it. The problem is, those questions don't have factual answers. Thus, what you were saying was really just an opinion of yours. If we had to make a law regarding abortions based on some person's or people's opinions, it would be unfair and unethical. Hence, why the US, for example, has seperation of church and state.

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

" Unless I'm misunderstanding the comment chain, you were arguing against abortions. "

I wasn't. I was defining exactly what it is, killing humans.

" To sum up, because a fetus has human dna, aborting it is equivalent to committing murder. "

Essentially yes. If we accept that a fetus is human, has different DNA than the mother, and humans have a right to life then this is the conclusion we can come to.

" is that fetus considered as much a human as you or I and how do we determine it "

Degrees of human now? Some humans are more human than others? Slippery slope right there.

We were all fetuses at one point, did something change us into being more human? Was it relocating outside the womb? That's only moving the physical location of where we are. Was it the birth certificate? The baby is born regardless of such a tag existing. Is it the cutting of the cord? Doesn't the cord fall off after some time regardless if we cut it or not?

First breath? Heartbeat? Brainwaves? These are things that happen naturally when a fetus develops over time. Insemination? Unless that process is interrupted (natural or deliberate) it will eventually turn into a thinking human being. If we travel backwards in time, examining a single person, at what point can we say that that person are no longer human, or as human as they were before?

My view is, based on my limited understanding, right when the DNA of both parents combine and the zygote starts to replicate with its own unique DNA that it is now human. Any other classification or degrees within the classification can only be used as justification for acts you can never do, due to ethical or moral reasons, to things that are considered more human.

" The problem is, those questions don't have factual answers "

It only depends on how we define humans. I'll admit that the definition I gave is vague and generalized, as human DNA is varied and changeable. Is it defined by how our brain functions? Then what about the addled? Philosophy or ideology? Ridiculous on its face. Being human centric? Then some animals we breed (dogs) count while misanthropes and murderers don't.

I argue that DNA is a decent baseline and starting point for defining what is human precisely because of it's more concrete nature compared to ever changing brain patterns for example.

" Thus, what you were saying was really just an opinion of yours "

Which part? Be exact and be clear, people can't read minds to know exactly what you claim to be my opinion alone.

" If we had to make a law regarding abortions based on some person's or people's opinions, it would be unfair and unethical. "

Which is why I haven't put forward much opinion nor proposed any laws.

[–]Phollie[S] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phollie[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phollie[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think what you mean to say is “the sexes aren’t the same, but they are equal.”

There is no doubt men are physically stronger, usually taller, usually have larger skeletons and organs, and have slightly different nerve/receptor signaling in their brains. But just because women are physically weaker, it doesn’t make them lesser. With extra time and effort put into it, yeah any given woman can get physically stronger or bulk up.

The same way men can become flexible and improve balance with time & effort put into the right exercises.

Men and women have waaaay different lives experiences. But I feel, overall, that women have insight into some of the things men struggle with. Like insecurity about their bodies or weight. Problems feeling good enough or independent enough to support a family/get a spouse. Problems with stereotyping, racism, homophobia and xenophobia affect both genders. Fear for our children and their futures affects both genders. Don’t think we aren’t watching and seeing how everything in the media is being made the fault of “straight white men.” That is an injustice and stereotype too. Not every man out there unfairly dominates/hates/rapes/thinks less of women/children/minorities.

There is a disconnect in what men perceive women’s lives to be and in what women perceive men’s lives to be. But the grown ups inside us who deal with real world problems on a daily basis know that some amount of inequalities are going to exist. I think the most you can do as a decent person is to try and prevent your own stereotyping/bias from creating further inequality.

[–]hork231 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

" I think what you mean to say is “the sexes aren’t the same, but they are equal.” "

No, I meant what I said. They aren't equal and that's easily demonstrable.

" But just because women are physically weaker, it doesn’t make them lesser "

Men are smarter on average. Men built civilization. Men are the disposable sex. This is not being equal.

" that women have insight into some of the things men struggle with. Like insecurity about their bodies or weight. "

Are you suggesting the males don't feel such things?

" Problems with stereotyping, racism, homophobia and xenophobia affect both genders "

Of which both sexes aren't affected equally. Men are more likely to be victims of violence.

" There is a disconnect in what men perceive women’s lives to be and in what women perceive men’s lives to be. "

I agree, both project onto the other to a large degree.

" I think the most you can do as a decent person is to try and prevent your own stereotyping/bias from creating further inequality. "

in addition, we should stop projecting onto other people how they are, what they think, how they act, etc. The golden rule, treat others how you want to be treated, is great for children who are learning that they aren't the only one's that want, think, feel, and hurt.

This is a bad heuristic however when examining the needs and wants of adults (and even children, think autists or handicaps), I don't want the same thing you do. I'm not going to treat a complete stranger with the trust I give to my brother. I'm not motivated in the same manner as another in regards to searching for a reproductive partner. I'm smarter than many people when it comes to maths.

[–]Phollie[S] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Hey there, didn’t downvote you, you are entitled to your opinion and beliefs. Just wanted to clarify that consciousness does not develop until the cerebral cortex does, and that occurs around 24 weeks gestation According to the American Medical Association, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, & American Academy of Pediatrics.

So..... it’s like deciding whether you want something growing inside you that is either detrimental to your mental health or physical health or both. The fetus is a clump of tissue without consciousness until the beginning of the 3rd trimester when consciousness begins to form.

Would you tell the recipient of an organ transplant that they are not allowed to take out the organ if it starts to kill them, just because it’s not technically their DNA?

Or what if someone put it there without your permission and now you have foreign tissue growing inside you?

This is one way of looking at it, ijs.... more women, fetuses, and actual babies (that are viable and have consciousness inside the womb) die and have died historically due to lack of legal, safe, accessible birth control & abortions than with them.

If you are a farmer with 8 children in a blight or drought stricken area and your wife just found out she is expecting and is starting to look more like a skeleton herself bc neither you nor her have anything more to give, then...... I guess the humane thing is to wait until it has consciousness to let it starve to death or die from disease.

There is a reason why rabbits and goats reabsorb their pregnancies when something goes wrong. It’s a goddamn shame that humans cannot do the same by identifying life-limiting congenital diseases or insufficient nutrients or literal fucking danger and allowing the pregnancy to be reabsorbed. But that’s not how this works, so............ let them die doing it the unsafe way or let them have birth control, sex education and abortion rights.

Just saying.... you need to be damn near dead before the climate inside the womb gets affected. And that’s why so many women do die in botched/nonmedical abortions.

Not to mention the fact that just being pregnant can kill you, even now. And back in the day it was way worse. I mean shit, how is that fair to the kids you have? Also, it’s not like this planet is suffering for lack of people.

[–]hork23 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

"So..... it’s like deciding whether you want something growing inside you that is either detrimental to your mental health or physical health or both."

It doesn't matter whether it's human or not? The crux of the issue seems to be if women have the option to avoid responsibility for their actions, remember condoms and such a thing, by killing something that is human. In other words, in terms of caring about humans, women top the charts surpassing the most helpless of humans. If true don't get mad, just accept it that that is how we are (looking at Titanic's survivor stats it suggests that is it).

" Would you tell the recipient of an organ transplant that they are not allowed to take out the organ if it starts to kill them, just because it’s not technically their DNA? "

A horribly wrong example, as the fetus does not have the same DNA as the would-be mother. Since both have human DNA, one might think that HUMAN rights apply to both.

" Or what if someone put it there without your permission and now you have foreign tissue growing inside you? "

So you are talking about rape. Oh wait, no you aren't because the vast majority of abortions occur after CONSENSUAL SEX. This is again ignoring the primary issue, that tissue inside has human DNA distinct from the mother.

" have died historically due to lack of legal, safe, accessible birth control & abortions than with them. "

Seems like birth control got those fetuses, regardless of whether the woman dies or not. Those women though have a choice in this matter and they chose their fate, why begrudge their freedom even to potentially die on their own terms. It's not like we force them to carry the burden of caring for the child (modern times at least), any mother can drop off any child in designated spots, again showcasing our willingness to allow women to abdicate their responsibility.

"I guess the humane thing is to wait until it has consciousness to let it starve to death or die from disease."

Well perhaps she should have put more forethought before she kept trying to have babies she can't support nor survive (having sex is a choice). Or are you suggesting she's yet again been raped (8+ times)? Or that we ought to let her remove her responsibility for her actions? Hell, we do that for most things concerning women.

" There is a reason why rabbits and goats reabsorb their pregnancies when something goes wrong. "

Deliberately aborting (aka killing a human fetus) is a choice, the opposite of what you try to suggest, 'something goes wrong', which is outside of her control. Seeing a underlying concept here? Hypoagency for women.

" let them die doing it the unsafe way or let them have birth control, sex education and abortion rights. "

You are talking about a small minority of cases with the medical technology we have now. Giving birth is no longer such a risk, stop pretending it is just as dangerous as in the past.

Abortions rights, aka killing human fetus rights. Sounds so good when you actually say what it is.

" I mean shit, how is that fair to the kids you have? "

Fair? That woman had a choice to keep risking her life to have more children. It's called freedom and many people like it that way. You making it sound like taking responsibility for one's own actions is some harrowing ordeal.

Yeah, mountain climbing can be dangerous too, should we legislate all the danger of that away? Oh wait, people can choose which mountain to climb and equipment to carry. It's not a female-centric problem either which is why no one thinks of doing such a thing (in addition to such a thing being nigh impossible but I hope you get my point).

" Also, it’s not like this planet is suffering for lack of people. "

We're talking about humans. Those are irrelevant circumstances which is, apparently, being irrationally used to justify your position here.

[–]Phollie[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I think you are missing the point big time here.

A fetus is about as sentient as a unit of packed red blood cells donated to someone, or an organ (which is also different human DNA living) until the cerebral cortex begins to form.

Birth control and condoms are STILL not available/utilized to everyone in 1st World Countries by virtue of abstinence only education/failure to teach sex education, cost, and men/women’s perception of condoms/birth control.

Birth control AND working condoms are relatively new inventions, just saying. And they are not foolproof.

Modern medicine cannot save every baby either. The US has the highest infant death rate of all developed countries BECAUSE of lack of education on women’s health. That should mean something to you. Even the women who are pregnant and want to keep their babies are losing them d/t lack of prenatal care. A lot of “abortion clinics” provide STD screening, Ovarian Cancer Screening, Cervical Cancer Screening, Uterine Cancer Screening, Breast Cancer Screening, AND Prenatal/Postnatal Care.

The fear that every woman is trying to abort to “escape responsibility” has ultimately hurt women who want to have healthy babies or screen themselves for various cancers. State governments have been doing all they can to prevent easy access to women’s health clinics, even though under federal law those same clinics can legally provide safe abortions to women who need them.

I haven’t gone into the fact that some abortions are absolutely medically necessary to save a mother’s life. Sometimes women get so life threateningly sick that a medication or treatment they are prescribed (or just the stress of being in the ICU in a ventilator) ends up killing the fetus anyway.

A dead fetus doesn’t always exit on its own. If you have a “stillborn” baby, or a fetus that miscarries, you VERY MUCH need healthcare to ensure all of the dead tissue and placenta is gone. So the whole “cutting extracting a fetus” is medically necessary. Abortions aren’t always the cause of the fetus’s death.

When a woman is pregnant and finds out somewhere in the course of her pregnancy that the fetus is dead inside her, her options are — abortion or carry it to term and deliver the dead fetus with medically induced pregnancy. Some people choose the abortion because they cannot stand the idea of another 3+ months carrying a dead fetus inside them. Grief also plays a role.

I hope some/any of this helped explain why abortions aren’t always a simple matter of “escaping responsibility.” Sometimes they are medically necessary. Sometimes they help a woman’s existing children get the resources they need. Sometimes women are never given the opportunity to use birth control or condoms. And yeah, sometimes women are straight up raped (I get it’s a classic example, but not one I think is the deciding factor).

The deciding factor for me is: fetus has no consciousness until AFTER 6 months and the cerebral cortex begins to develop. Until that time, I feel it is a woman’s body, so it’s her choice. I think she should be offered education/help/resources on what to do if she carries to term and how to prevent future unwanted pregnancy if she doesn’t.

More domestic terrorism occurs against pregnant women seeking abortions and abortion clinics than any other form of terrorism the US has experienced. Bombings, Arsen, acid attacks, and straight up murder. And that is happening even though abortion is legal.

Conservatives basically treat women who have abortions as if they deserve the death sentence too. Otherwise they wouldn’t be attacking and killing these women. It’s an interesting double standard, since you don’t see fundamentalist groups attacking pedophiles in their own communities with the same violence/anger.

Do you think women who have abortions deserve to die and should no longer have a right to life? I’m honestly curious.

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

" A fetus is about as sentient as a unit of packed red blood cells donated to someone, or an organ (which is also different human DNA living) until the cerebral cortex begins to form. "

I don't care about the sentience in what I'm saying here. I'm arguing about the humanity of the fetus. I agree on the organ and blood point, it does have different DNA so that's another aspect to consider. However, those things are usually donated through VOLUNTEERS and this point makes it inapplicable to a fetus.

" Birth control and condoms are STILL not available "

Then if they don't want the consequences of an action don't do it. Why is this so hard to understand?

" Birth control AND working condoms are relatively new inventions, just saying. And they are not foolproof. "

Yeah I know, again I don't care much about this point.

" Modern medicine cannot save every baby either. The US has the highest infant death rate of all developed countries BECAUSE of lack of education on women’s health. "

*Yawn* don't care. I'm not arguing this.

" The fear that every woman is trying to abort to “escape responsibility” "

Really? Calling it fear when that's what it is? I also didn't say that every woman doing it had that motivation.

" I haven’t gone into the fact that some abortions are absolutely medically necessary to save a mother’s life. "

A risk which she was (hypothetically) willing to accept when she had sex. Also, it's a small minority, stop pretending it more prevalent than it is.

" A dead fetus doesn’t always exit on its own. "

A fair point on why some abortions need to be performed. But it's dead and I'm not arguing about dead things.

" I hope some/any of this helped explain why abortions aren’t always a simple matter of “escaping responsibility.” "

What are the statistics concerning your scenarios compared to other reasons?

" The deciding factor for me is: fetus has no consciousness until AFTER 6 months and the cerebral cortex begins to develop. "

Okay, then I know your bias, ty.

" I feel it is a woman’s body "

Demonstrably false, it has different DNA.

" More domestic terrorism occurs against pregnant women seeking abortions and abortion clinics than any other form of terrorism the US has experienced "

Don't care but I call bullshit.

" Conservatives basically treat women who have abortions as if they deserve the death sentence too. "

You gonna think why? No? Conservatives bad! Perhaps it's because they consider those fetuses to be alive, human, and deserving of a life just as much as the women that try to kill them. But nobody talks about how conservatives seem to value, what they perceive as, the most vulnerable population we have.

" Do you think women who have abortions deserve to die and should no longer have a right to life? I’m honestly curious. "

Personally, I don't care if they kill every fetus. I think they are awful people for doing so but how I can stop them? If they want to commit mass killing of humans with their freedom, well that's female nature I suppose. What I'm arguing is:

A: that the fetus is human since it has human DNA

B: It has different DNA to the mother

C: We care more about grown female humans than the most vulnerable of humans (that includes children of both sexes)

D: We are so gynocentric we are willing to let millions of humans die by the hand of the "mother"

E: We aren't willing to let women face consequences for their own actions even if millions of humans die

F: We would never tolerate such things from men

G: This demonstrates an aspect of female, and male, nature that few are willing to consider and continuously lie to pretend it doesn't exist

H: The criteria for killing something based solely on its sentience is flawed and is a slippery slope.

[–]Phollie[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

A. More women and babies die when there is no access to legal, safe, medically controlled abortions. You have to be nearly dead for the womb to be affected, so more times than not the mother will die and then so goes the fetus. Source World Health Organization

B. Source 1 in Donestic Terrorism Acid Attacks, arson, shootings, murder, bombings against abortion clinics/providers/patients Source 2

C. Yes conservative fundamentalists are bad when they think it’s OK to kill/strip the rights from women and girls who have abortions.

D. You said it’s not the woman’s body so it cannot be her choice? Legally, the people that exist are priority before people who “will exist” or who will “one day be viable.” If men were held to the same standard, every time a man commits a crime on extant people (neighbor/husband/wife/family), the courts would up the sentence due to “crime risk to future children.”

E. Fetuses do not have the same rights because they are not yet people. Meaning they cannot survive independently of another person’s vital organs and do not have consciousness for the first 6 months. But even if a fetus had the same exact rights, they would still honor the mother’s rights to her body first and here is why:

Roe v. Wade likened the situation to adults with the same rights. Let’s say I am dying and I need you to share your kidney or a lobe of your liver or something in order to keep me alive. You don’t want to. Well, you have the legal right to refuse. I can not force you to sustain my life when I am unable, & when it potentially causes harm to you in order to sustain my life. Even if I only need one organ, or one or two days of your body to keep me going.

Do you understand yet why pregnancy is now deemed a choice? For so many years it wasn’t a choice, just something forced upon you. And yes, I do say forced, whether explicitly or implicitly by society.

Because of gender roles not only was it socially unacceptable for women to have sex without having children or a husband; it was unacceptable to be barren; unable to use birth control because many religions see that as abortion/going against “God’s plan” (which assumes god’s only plan is for women to become pregnant); unacceptable to refuse your husband sex (in 1993-Oklahoma became the last state to withdraw marital rape exemptions). Before that, even if your husband beat you into having sex, it wasn’t rape. Because you were married. And that gives him unspoken rights to your body whenever/however. That’s how it was viewed. Nowadays, marital rape is only legal in some states when there is no force used, just drugs/substances. source

[–]hork23 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A: Doesn't matter to my point. This isn't about providing the best circumstances for both to survive, what I'm talking about is how if we want to pretend to care about babies, children, and human rights violations then we are letting horrible things happen to the most vulnerable humans. We are justifying it too by making all sorts of half-assed excuses that don't fit reality.

B: DUDE, I DON'T CARE! This doesn't matter to what I'm talking about right now. If you want to discuss such things, go somewhere else.

C: Are you going to recognize that they think the rights of little humans are being violated in favor of grown adults? Nope, other tribe bad! Try gaining some empathy and theory of mind.

" Legally, the people that exist "

So now you've defined fetuses out of existence? Do you see what I mean with bad excuses? We can physically see those fetuses, they are a part of reality. Or do you mean to say exist legally, as in birth certificate? That's the cutoff point for being human?

Hypothetically then, we can take those new-borns, without birth certificates, and kill them and no one ought to get mad and I'll be able to get away with it. No, we legally consider the fetus a living human when someone deliberately kills them with the consent of the mother. The parents have an emotional attachment to the fetus.

" Fetuses do not have the same rights because they are not yet people. "

Correct, I'm arguing against the notion that they ought not to be considered people, where have you been this whole time?

" Meaning they cannot survive independently of another person’s vital organs "

Organ donor recipients aren't human then. Your defining human fetuses out of being considered human is getting more and more bloated and ridiculous.

" do not have consciousness for the first 6 months "

RIP coma patients. Also, doesn't matter to what I'm talking about.

" Roe v. Wade likened the situation to adults with the same rights. "

That case was a dumpster fire. It was built on lies, most people involved regrets the decision and wishes to reverse it. See the client's and Ruth Ginsburg's word on the matter.

" I need you to share your kidney or a lobe of your liver or something in order to keep me alive "

The problem with your whole example is that you didn't consent to be sick. Pregnant women consented to having sex. Would you like to keep using metaphors that don't apply at the exact point we need to be most accurate?

" For so many years it wasn’t a choice, just something forced upon you. "

Is that the way you think of it? That's what you think of women? That all those women were raped? That they couldn't refuse to have sex with their husband, boy friend? WTF, you are a feminist.

" And yes, I do say forced, whether explicitly or implicitly by society. "

Women didn't have to marry and stop pretending they did, feminist.

" Because of gender roles not only was it socially unacceptable for women to have sex without having children or a husband "

No, they looked down upon promiscuous, unmarried women due to the burden they put on society and the disruptive effect they have on married men. Have you looked at the stats lately of the consequences of single mothers? Now, the women could have their kids and have sex with whomever they could back then (and they certainly did). But a man wasn't forced to support such whorish women. This lack of support discouraged women from acting in such a manner.

" it was unacceptable to be barren "

I don't believe you.

" unable to use birth control because many religions see that as abortion/going against “God’s plan "

I guess you haven't looked up any information on slutty religious girls having their back alley abortions regardless of what god says. Again, they chose to have sex first, against what god says. Hmm, I wonder if that advice by god makes it easier not to fuck up your life.

" unacceptable to refuse your husband sex "

Yeah, you are a feminist and are utterly wrong about this issue. Marriage is a transaction, men gives her the fruits of his labor to support the woman. The woman gives him access and the products of her reproductive ability. This is why men owned the children and could have sex with the wife whenever he wanted, she sold herself to him. So he can't forcibly take what is legally his. Oh wait, I forgot. Women don't have any control over their lives and therefore no responsibility.

" And that gives him unspoken rights to your body whenever/however. "

Which she sold to him. You're conveniently ignoring his obligations to her, the other side of the marriage contract. Doesn't matter, man bad woman good. Man oppressor woman oppressed. Unspoken? Again I don't believe you.

Why is a feminist on this sub? If you don't believe yourself to be a feminist you still believe some of their underlying beliefs and tenets, namely historical female oppression and equality. Go watch some Karen Straughan.

[–]Phollie[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok this conversation is going south in a big way. You never sell your rights to your body to another person in marriage. And if that’s what men think, then no wonder hardly anyone is getting married these days.

Women don’t implicitly consent to pregnancy and children when having sex. If they did, then you are ignoring the other side of the matter. Are men implicitly agreeing to impregnate a woman every time they have sex? And impregnate with the intent of providing child support?

Abstinence doesn’t work because people do not make infallible decisions. People are willing to take risks. And there is no birth control method that is fool proof that involves penetrating the vagina with a penis—period.

A feminist is on this sub bc I have a son who is being exposed to the toxic incel views and the hatred of radical feminists who overcompensate with the lack of enforceable equal rights for women and children by trying to limit the rights of male counterparts. The point is that no ones rights are fully protected and guaranteed. Feminism is only wrong when it is at the expense of men’s rights.

But some men (yourself included) have a little catching up to do on what exactly your rights are and should be as they relate to women. You may be married, but it doesn’t give you the right to have sex with your partner any time you have the urge.

You may be a Christian, but being a Christian does not entitle you to make women second class citizens out of some warped view of Old Testament gender roles. Yes, Eve was persuaded to eat from the tree of knowledge, yes she definitely offered it to Adam. But just because Eve fucked up, it doesn’t mean all women shouldn’t be trusted or allowed to make their own decisions. “The weaker sex” is something men historically called women. Not physically weaker, but mentally (stupid and uneducated), and spiritually (corrupt from original sin—easily debauched by evil).

Whores wouldn’t exist if there was no demand. No demand, no supply. Now keep in mind that most “whores” and “prostitutes” are literally owned by pumps or traffickers. Women are still property and so are men in many cases. Men and women are both trafficked but for very different reasons. Men are doing forced physical labor/factory work and forced to traffic drugs under threat of death. Women and children (boys and girls) are getting sold for sex. Some are child brides or sold into marriages. Other women are luckier, they get sold off into domestic slavery as unpaid caregivers to elderly/maids/nannies to rich foreigners. Even women “past their prime” for sex trafficking are trafficked into factory work sewing clothing/assembling appliances/etc.

These are all forced upon men AND women, my point being that instead of making everything a total pissing contest, adult should maybe focus on correcting inequalities that exist (no matter who started what or why they think they were justified in violating someone else’s rights).

I have a son and a daughter and worry about them both for vastly different reasons. All of those involve other people violating their rights.

[–]hork232 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

" You never sell your rights to your body to another person in marriage "

Perhaps you should learn about marriage in the past.

"And if that’s what men think, then no wonder hardly anyone is getting married these days. "

I should clarify as I see I wasn't clear. I was talking about the historical way that marriage was conducted, not the way it is now. I'm talking about the origins of many things, not current affairs.

" Women don’t implicitly consent to pregnancy and children when having sex. "

I agree, as they never implicitly consent to anything in order to deny culpability for their actions. That's why they are the passive sex in regards to mate selection.

However, what I'm talking about is taking responsibilities for one's actions, which means accepting the consequences of said actions and understanding what they are. If you can not do this, or others are not allowing the consequences of your actions to affect you, you are not an independent adult. You are a child.

" Are men implicitly agreeing to impregnate a woman every time they have sex? "

Yes, men are taking that risk and hopefully with the full knowledge of the results of their actions. This is why I don't have a problem with condoms, IUD's and such. They are taking measures, owning responsibility for their actions, to prevent things they don't want to occur.

" And impregnate with the intent of providing child support? "

In terms of legality, I would agree this is the consequence due to the enforcement of unjust laws onto men. Why unjust? After sexual intercourse, men have no ability to make a decision considering his role as financial provider. A woman could pick a random guy to be the father and he is billed. Also, paternity tests are considered illegal in many countries and even if he proves the child isn't his, the court doesn't care.

So the legal consequence is an injustice inflicted upon men for women's benefit.

" Abstinence doesn’t work because people do not make infallible decisions. "

And so they should bear the consequences of their inability to control their instincts. Don't want a child? Stop having sex in a way that guarantees it.

"I have a son who is being exposed to the toxic incel views"

Do you know what an incel is?

"the hatred of radical feminists who overcompensate with the lack of enforceable equal rights for women and children by trying to limit the rights of male counterparts. "

I'll tell you something that will blow your mind. Feminists started out that way, they haven't changed, and that was always their goal. Women good, man bad. Women oppressed, men oppressor.

" Feminism is only wrong when it is at the expense of men’s rights. "

Yep, you still believe it was good for something. You've been lied to... BY THE FEMINISTS!

" But some men (yourself included) have a little catching up to do on what exactly your rights are and should be as they relate to women "

Stop flattering yourself, you can't read my mind.

" but it doesn’t give you the right to have sex with your partner any time you have the urge. "

If I pay for a thing then it's mine. If she sells a thing then it's not hers. Again, thinking about it from the historically point of view, he was giving her all his excess labor in exchange for reproductive success. Women reneged on this agreement but kept his labor. Women refused to keep their obligation to him while he had to keep his obligation to her. Men were jailed and beaten as a result of their backstabbing.

" You may be a Christian"

I'm not.

" but being a Christian does not entitle you to make women second class citizens out of some warped view of Old Testament gender roles "

Women are not and never were second class citizens. They were always put before men and before children. That's part of what it is to be gynocentric, and humans are that.

" These are all forced upon men AND women "

Survival came first, before the comfort of women. It's only when MEN beat back the wilderness and relieved women of doing necessary things around the house that weren't dangerous (talking about the Industrial Revolution here) that women were comfortable enough to start complaining that they didn't have it good enough and that men were keeping them down (and they don't bother considering that the men were keeping them safe).

" my point being that instead of making everything a total pissing contest, adult should maybe focus on correcting inequalities that exist "

It's why I'm not a feminist, as this is a tenet of their ideology.

(no matter who started what or why they think they were justified in violating someone else’s rights).

If those violations are ongoing and are caused by a certain group of people then it is NECESSARY to identify who it is in order to stop them from continuing. Arguing that we should all just get along and forget what happened in the past DOESN'T FUCKING WORK when men are being continually stabbed in the back by women who believe in feminism and the system that has adopted its practices and theories as fact.

NO, men ought not to act so nice any longer as that's what got us here in the first place. Men continually gave in to the insanity that feminists spoke and that women incorporated in their thinking uncritically.

" I have a son and a daughter and worry about them both for vastly different reasons. All of those involve other people violating their rights. "

Then I wish you well in your endeavors in educating both of their own natures so as not to be taken advantage of, either of being convinced one is an eternal victim and the other an eternal victimizer, and that the system unfairly benefits one while calling the other a horrible monster for just being the wrong sex and that this system is perpetuated by the false beliefs of both sexes whom both are negatively prejudiced against one but not the other.

[–]Daft_Vader69 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phollie[S] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You know what makes me really sad? Even if someone is terrifying you and coercing you under threat of death/bodily harm, they can still stimulate your genitals into arousal.

Being erect or orgasming while being raped does NOT mean you “liked it” and does NOT indicate consent. This is true whether men are assaulted anally or forced to penetrate another person/thing or even just manually stimulated.

It is only a physiologic response and does not mean love, does not mean like, and does not mean consent.

I have unfortunately had this conversation with survivors who orgasmed while being raped. Many of them doubted the legitimacy of their rape because they “got off” and feel crushed by guilt/as if they are twisted inside.

Rape happens when a stranger’s need for sexual release is more important than your rights to life and bodily autonomy. Another person is dehumanizing you, devaluing you and treating your body as their property.

Some rapists commit rape as a result of arousal from violence. For them, they won’t be aroused without putting other people in fear for their lives, causing bodily harm/mutilation, or forcing their target to act out roles in a fantasy.

The point of rape isn’t to make YOU feel good or let you have any control over a situation. Not only are you unable to protect yourself, you cannot control the feelings and sensations a person forces upon you.

Rape is horrible. So what kind of messed up person orgasms while being raped? That’s a question survivors ask, particularly male survivors. Those situations are horrific enough without the added horror and confusion of orgasm during rape.

Violating your body, forcing you to feel it all while they use you is why the act is so cruel. You have no control over your body/what it does/how it responds. Those areas when stimulated are supposed to feel good. That’s how evolution works—if it didn’t feel good, then there would be less incentive to continue the species.

But it doesn’t mean you are not being harmed. Rape is always an act of violence and always causes harm, even if the victim ISN’T beaten within an inch of their lives, sodomized, fisted or otherwise mutilated. The psychological damage caused by rape can pretty much destroy a person’s life by shattering their world view and identity. If you thought of yourself as someone competent, someone who could be taken seriously, someone deserving respect, someone able to protect himself and others, or whatever... it can just crumble people’s identity.

When a person is raped, it leaves a scar. People who have been victimized are more likely to believe & identify with other survivors. It just shocks me that anyone would doubt this mans story, especially under the circumstances of being physically and chemically restrained.

The amount of damage done to his identity and self-perception, as well as reputation and family, is more than many people can bear.

Victim blaming and shaming is something men face just as much as women, except no one thinks to call it that.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments