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

Con says the child should take center stage and be the most important.I agree.Considering the best interests of the child it is in the child's best interests to live. Even if the man puts the child up for adoption that gives the child a chance at life. Even if the welfare of the child weren't the man's motivation that still doesn't change the fact that it is in the best interests of the child to live.Aside from that the welfare of the child will undoubtedly be the man's motivation at least in some cases. Put yourself in the shoes of a pro-life man who was raped, whose rapist gets pregnant, and is having an abortion. He may feel guilty for the abortion, even though he was raped. Giving him a veto against the rapist having an abortion helps both the man and the child. In another case the man may want to raise the child himself. Perhaps he sees the child as the one beautiful thing that came out of an ugly and dispicable act, and it would be adding insult to injury if that child's life were snuffed out before it could even be born.It is very easy for Con to say that he/she wouldn't feel responsible. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the rape victim. It is a common psychological problem of victims of rape as well as other types of abuse to feel as if it were their fault.http://www.aftersilence.org...It is especially likely for a man to feel this way, because of cultural expectations that a man is supposed to be stronger than a woman. This is why male rape is widely underreported, and that is another good reason for this law. If it meant saving the child that could be an extra motivaiton for many of the men who go on in their lives suffering in silence to come forward and report the rape.If a child results the man may feel to blame, because "if only I had been strong maybe I could've gotten out of it, there would've been no child, and the child would not have died". Since rape is so traumatizing he may feel that way even if there was absolutely no way he could've gotten out of it.Clarification on "fear'When I said "fear" was an issue I was talking about how "fear" can sometimes contribute to an involuntary erection, which makes the raping of a man by a woman a lot easier than people think.Why Would he Stick Around?To press criminal charges. Obviously if he's not even going to charge her with a crime then we don't know she committed a rape and she go ahead and have her abortion. In fact given the constitutional rule "innocent until proven guilty" this rule would likely only apply to a handful of cases, as it could only apply after she has been convicted. It is still relevant since the rapist may very well be convicted at a point where there is still plenty of time for her to get an abortion. In fact this makes the law even more important, since the majority of cases this would apply to would be cases where the rapist woman only decided to have an abortion after she was sentenced to prison. As the law stands now a rapist woman who gets pregnant might hold the "baby" over the man's head and say "if I get convicted of rape I will have an abortion", making the man not press charges or if it's already started even to fumble the case and lose on purpose, because if she aborted the baby due to being convicted he may feel responsible for it. This law would prevent that sort of blackmail from happening.This is About Actions Having Consequences, Not RevengeIf you take something from someone else and you are caught you have to give it back, usually that and much more in punitive damages. Is that unacceptable revenge? Should they only have to give back what they took?When a woman rapes a man she takes control over his body. The product of this heinous criminal act was made in part from something she stole from the man (sperm). He ought to have a say in it if she wants to destroy it.