A Woman Who Rapes A Man Should Not Be Allowed To Have An Abortion Without His Consent

Difference Between "Abstract Reasoning" and "Real Life"When pro-choice people say that life doesn't begin until birth or viability they are typically talking about this in the abstract, distanced from any actual abortions. Even without changing their position in real life the person may still feel an emotional attachment to the growing life inside the woman. Here I use the term "life" as it is indisputable that a fetus is alive, whether it is a person with rights is another matter.People Can Have Affection For Animals People can have affection for animals, and they are not people. A person may even generally believe for example that it should be OK to kill pigs for their meat, but they may grow a special bond with a specific pig and then protest vehemently if someone suggests killing it for its meat. One Can Hold That A Fetus Is A Person But That Abortion Is Generally Acceptable http://atheism.about.com...An example of this line of reasoning is here:"Whether the fetus is declared a person from a scientific, religious, or legal perspective, this would not necessarily mean that abortion is wrong. A woman could assert a right to control her body such that even if the fetus is a person, it has no legal claim to use it. Could an adult claim a right to being hooked up to someone’s body? No — it might not be ethical to refuse the use of one’s body to save the life of another, but it couldn’t be forced by the law." However, this viewpoint is not inconsistent with the viewpoint that by raping a man the woman by violating the man's right to his body ought to be considered to have foresaken any right over her own in regards to the products of that rape.If I steal a machine from someone and I create things with that machine a court will likely hold that both the machine and its products must be given back to me. Similarly, the woman has stolen the man's body and his sperm and with that sperm has produced the man's son against his will. The child no longer belongs to her, and by law if convicted her body belongs to the state in so far as her body is required to be transported against her will into a prison for a set period of time, meaning denying her an abortion is not taking away any rights that aren't already being taken away.Reasonable Inferences Are Acceptable EvidenceJust because the source does not explicitly state self-guilt related to a fetus does not mean we can not infer based on common sense that there could easily be such self-guilt.The source does reference that the victim often blames themselves for the rape. If you blame yourself for something then you are likely to blame yourself for any "product" of that as well. If the rape didn't happen the child wouldn't exist, and wouldn't have been able to be aborted. Hence, if the man already blames himself for being raped he will likely blame himself for the abortion.Increasing The Odds of The Case Being ProsecutedFurthermore, if the man blames himself he may not feel he is justified in prosecuting. But if the life of the child is at stake and he feels any empathy for that life, regardless of whether he considers abortion morally wrong or if it's just "Because of his personal feelings towards his potential future child" then he may then feel more inclined to prosecute if it means he can block her from having an abortion. Males being raped is currently underreported. Passing this law may increase the reports.There Is No Logical Reason For Any Difference""However, ...it is theirs.""Most people"...arguments." It is a reasonable assumption. Why would it be any different for this subsection of this population? Because the child was unplanned? People still feel feelings for children who were unplanned. Because the child is a product of rape?Sometimes women who are raped and choose to keep the baby care for the baby very much.An example here:http://www.my-diary.org...Similarly, there will be men who feel the same way. Notice she says next to the Lord her daughter is the most important thing in her life. It's not because she's anti-abortion (which the webpage doesn't address one way or another) or she would've likely put her child up for adoption.Even without an example just from sheer numbers we can expect some men who are raped to still have feelings of empathy for their unborn child.More Harm Than Good?The woman is a rapist, one of the most vile sorts of people. How much is the "harm" done to her by making her continue her pregnancy worth? Considering going through a pregnancy takes around 9 months and she will likely spend around 10 years of her life or more in prison (even if it's 5 that's still a lot more than 9 months) then this is a very small "harm" to her and weighs comparatively less in terms of justice than it would to impose it on an ordinary non-raping woman because she is a rapist.Most people are not going to feel much empathy for the "poor rapist being forced to carry a child to term", but will for the rape victim and the child. People already aren't going to feel much empathy for the "poor rapist being forced to go to prison" and prison is clearly much, much harsher than having to carry a child to term. Rebuttal "Lawyering,... lose." Con implies that it matters whether or not there is political controversy. So would con consider legalizing murder if it was both rare and one major political party wanted to legalize it?How about a better example? Let's say embezzlement was found to be exceedingly rare in a country. Say, 0.01% does not change the fact that it is wrong and that more good can be done by prohibiting it than allowing it?Logic "My ... route. (http://www.webmd.com......)So, ... sense."One's ability to reason is not a black-and-white thing. The man may be able to reason in some ways well but not others. It is true that the trauma of the rape is likely to skew his emotions. This could either include a deep caring for the fetus or a deep hatred. But if there's a deep hatred he'll more than likely let it be aborted. If he cares he'll more than likely let the fetus live. His empathy is still a positive good even if it is based off of some illogical placement of blame on himself, the victim if the woman were to choose an abortion.""The woman could even say "if you press charges at all I will have an abortion" preventing charges from being filed. In this case though if she has an abortion the man has nothing to lose by pressing charges against her."Which makes the resolution pointless."Not at all. The state could grant a "stay of abortion" preventing the woman from seeking an abortion after charges are filed until one of the following happen:1. She is acquitted.2. She is on the last day to legally have an abortion and still has not been convicted.Such a provision would not infringe on the rights of innocent non-rapist women to have abortions since it makes sure that if she turns out not guilty she can still have an abortion."I seriously...resolution."Mental health issues are complicated and can have varying effects and may be apparent or not apparent, so he may be able to pull it off. Furthermore, even if things seem a little weird people aren't likely to question that he's honest about getting married. That's not very good manners. Even if it's unlikely to work the rapist might not know that and being subjected to this additional trauma would not be good for the rape victim."Pro, the link provided says, quite clearly, that rape victims often feel like it's their fault of they should have changed something."Which will be less and less likely over time. Furthermore, self-blame does not necessarily mean you hold the perpetrator blameless. More likely he would blame both himself and the perpetrator. Himself for not being strong enough to fend off the attack, and the woman for being an evil rapist."Which really begs the question of why this forced pregnancy is necessary to begin with?"I have addressed this already several times. See above arguments.