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

I will make some refutations, as I assume this is what the rest of the rounds, except the closing, are for. "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." There is a difference between a fetus and a child. http://www.merriam-webster.com... : : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth http://dictionary.reference.com... : a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl. Now, my opponent takes a standard pro-life approach. But now let us consider this in a hypothetical stance, this child will wind up knowing he or she is adopted, if this child pursues the truth and finds out that he was a punishment, a forced birth, would that not scar the child? That's not within the child's best interest. It's all hypothetical anyways, so let's move on. "Aside from that the welfare of the child will undoubtedly be the man's motivation at least in some cases." I extend my argument that, because he is a victim, and likely not to maintain contact with his attacker, and that he will not feel responsible. My opponent's only source shows that a man would likely, well, feel like not a man. It says nothing about children or potential children. "Put yourself in the shoes of a pro-life man who was raped," This shows a very conditional, and biased viewpoint. Could this happen? Yes. But it would be outright absurd to make a law on such a rare, rare circumstance. "In another case the man may want to raise the child himself." Then the man could just as easily pursue an actual relationship, all Pro is doing is stating very, very unlikely and hypothetical situations, rather than any sort of legal instance or relative psychological studies. "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." Refer to my argument about the child finding out that he or she was the product of a rape, and more or less a punishment. This isn't best for the child. "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." Again, the source says nothing of children, only that they question their masculinity due to societal expectations. "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." I assume that Pro is going off of the scenario that the man is pro-life. Since, in this scenario, the law is not in effect, this is really just a situation where, if he loses the case, she'd probably still get an abortion. Now the legal issue AND the child is out of the way, if this law were in effect, the only one at gain would be the man. "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 would be too rare a happening to make a law out of it. "This is About Actions Having Consequences, Not Revenge" The consequence is prison time after being found guilty, which is already a pretty good consequence, it gives the man time to work over his trauma, and the woman time to face the consequences of her mistake. She took away his choice, and now her freedom is taken away. What my opponent is putting forth is a very, very specific scenario so that it goes in their favor. Now, the only source my opponent had provided is that men feel ashamed of their rape, they feel that they aren't true men. There is nothing stating that they'd be attached to or want to raise the child, as this child would likely serve as a reminder of what happened. I still extend my scenario, which is much broader, and not so specific (Pro-life man, open contact with rapist) Scenario: A woman rapes a man, he presses charges, and wins the case. She is sentenced. It is then her choice what to do with her body, she either endures the pregnancy, or chooses to end it early. Either way, she faces prison time (Legal consequence), and the man can get the help he needs. If the law proposed was in effect, the man, at first fueled by feelings of revenge, and shame, would force the woman to go through with the pregnancy. She does, the child is born. The child is put up for adoption, and the man feels a little bit better. As he's going through with the help he is getting, he may feel some sort of guilt for this revenge, as if it were taken too far. This just leads to too much choice in the hands of a damaged man, and mental scarring for every party involved. Pro, please show how this would be important for every man, not just a pro-life one. This is already a very rare case, and it cannot be applied to just one side of the spectrum. It still seems to just be for a short-term emotional boost.