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

Child's best interests: My opponent's entire argument is on a pro-life basis, there's no showing that this is in best interests for everyone. Not every man, raped or not, will have a big deal with abortions, so therefore, not every man will have some big sagacious realization, to some people, believe it or not, living starts after the period where abortion isn't applicable, not when the fetus is newer. "Rape Victims Often Feel Guilty Over Being Raped" Pro, your argument is entirely hypothetical. I went off of your source, and now you're going back on it. Feelings of guilt, as far as the next link says... "Rape victims often blame themselves for the crime committed against them." Nothing related to a possible fetus. "Behavioral self blame refers to victims feeling they should have done something differently." If my opponent tries to make this relative to a fetus, this is what the example states. "This is a behavioral self blame thought (undeserved guilt): 'It might have turned out better if I had done this other thing. I should have cooperated / I should have fought back.' " There's another form of self blame, I will provide my opponent's source, and its example. "Characterological self blame is when victims feel there is something inherently wrong with them (causing them to deserve to be assaulted)." "This is a characterological self blame thought (undeserved shame): 'I must be a bad person to deserve to be raped and not believed by anyone." Again, there is nothing related to abortions or fetuses. This is about the rape itself. So, Pro, since the burden of proof of emotional attachment is on you, there should be actual instances, that are sourced, involving a male rape victim. " Pro-Life Or Pro-Choice It's Irrelevant" section: " I said "Put yourself in the shoes of a pro-life man who was raped" because someone who feels that strongly about abortion would be the most hurt by the woman's abortion." I did, I literally tried my best to imagine this. No matter how emotionally traumatized by the rape I would be, my first instinct would be to press charges, but otherwise distance myself and get help. "However, most people regardless of their general position on abortion still will have some sentimental feelings for the "unborn child", and you can argue that I should use the term "fetus" all you want but I use "unborn child" in this sentence to emphasize that this is what people tend to think of the "unborn child" as when it is theirs." "Most people" could mean consensual sex, try "Most male rape victims", with a source? My opponent is simply using assumptions in place of actual arguments. Following my opponent's link regarding pro-choice people not being pro-abortion, and that being relative to the quote "Safe, legal, and rare..." " President Barack Obama borrowed a page from pro-abortion ex-President Bill Clinton at a forum in New Mexico today, when he answered a question about abortion by saying it should be "safe, legal and rare." " ""I think it's something all of us should recognize is a difficult, oftentimes tragic situation that families are wrestling with. I think the families and the women involved are the ones who should make the decisions, not the government," he said." Pro, using this as part of your case, do you agree with that? This isn't relevant to Pro's case, which he may likely point out. "My opponent suggests we shouldn't have this law just because it is to regulate something that is rare." That, and the fact that the case presented lies on a very, very specific kind of man temporarily benefiting from it. "The law should do as much good as it can and comparatively as little harm as it can. If it does more good than harm we should have the law." I extend all arguments relating to why it does do more harm than good. "The logic that it's rare so the law shouldn't deal with it just doesn't hold water. Some countries have very small homicide rates. Some even have years without a single murder committed. Should these countries legalize murder because it is "rare"?" Lawyering tactic, rather weak, too. No. Homicide is something that is set in stone as 'bad', it doesn't pertain to only one side of the political spectrum. That is actually ending a life of a person that can actually remember, or know what he or she is about to lose. "Knowing that his own seed has conceived a child he may feel an emotional bond with that child, and want to raise the child for that reason. In that case just "starting an actual relationship and having another kid" is NOT enough." Really, pro, I can keep saying the logical part, and you may keep going on with a very specific set of ideals, but it will go nowhere, I extend my argument. ""I assume that Pro is going off of the scenario that the man is pro-life." No, again one does not have to be pro-life in order to be emotionally affected by the life of the "unborn child"." It was a continuation of your hypothetical, so it was simply an assumption. "Again, my opponent is assuming the man is going to be logical after being subjected to a traumatizing event. The man might NOT reason that way, or he might think of the possibility of her "aborting anyways" but still avoid pressing charges or may fumble the case hoping on the faint possibility that she keeps her word and doesn't abort in that event, which means if she does in fact wind up aborting anyways not only has the man been tricked out of any legal justice he has been further emotionally scarred by the abortion." My opponent claims that the man would not be level headed due to the trauma of the rape, but that he would instead be completely devoted and focused on the welfare of a fetus. This man would probably seek his own well-being first, he was just, as my opponent said, subjected to a traumatizing event. He's dealing with depression, either bottling up his feelings, or perhaps taking a self-destructive route. (http://www.webmd.com...) So, if the man is unable to think of himself, why, Pro, would he be devoted to the fetus of his recent rapist? Your argument doesn't make much sense. "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. "Furthermore to make sure she doesn't face charges after the child is born she may even go further, forcing the man to pretend to friends and coworkers that he is having a relationship with her or at the extreme considering marrying her for example so she will have evidence in her defense if he decides to press charges." I seriously don't see a depressed, foggy-headed individual really pulling all of this off. Doesn't it sound a little outlandish to assume that a recently traumatized man, seeking or not seeking help, would be able to figure out how to pull of this ruse? It really seems to be getting out of the zone of practical reasoning (Eye for an eye), and more in to a very, very specific scenario to justify the resolution. I'm running out of characters, so I'll sum up my rebuttals quickly... "1. She did after all rape him." Pro, the link provided says, quite clearly, that rape victims often feel like it's their fault of they should have changed something. "2. Her imprisonment is going to be far worse for her than not being able to have an abortion." Which really begs the question of why this forced pregnancy is necessary to begin with? "3. Had he not done that then the child would've never been able to live in the first place." This still caters to very specific morals, not an overall spectrum. And to refute the "Most or the rest of their lives" statement: While Wikipedia isn't the best source, it states that the average sentence for convicted rapists is 11.8 years. http://en.wikipedia.org...