Morality and Law
If a woman is fighting off a rapist, should she be able to use maximum force and take his life to defend herself? i.e. Shoot, knife or bludgeon him.
If a man finds his partner has fallen pregnant to him and he decides he no longer wishes to proceed with the birth of that potential child, should he be able to use maximum force to terminate the pregnancy within the 24 week legal period? i.e. Force her to swallow the morning after pill to deal with a zygot. Punch her in the stomach severely enough to induce a miscarriage. Drug her to sleep and perform an abortion on her himself.
As you read the above you may notice that #1 tends to sound a reasonable request due to the fact that we tend to see a rapist as a sexual predator. i.e. A scum bag who just takes what he wants without consent and shows a total lack of respect for the female.
Reading #2 may make you feel a bit queemish as it entails both violence and forcing your decision upon the female. However, if you have a think about the 2 scenarios and juxtpose #2 with the actions in #1 you may discover why some men have gone down this path in order to escape a nightmare. Both actions are immoral but the law gives some protection in only one scenario.
Within the womb of the woman in #2 lies the male’s gene. Where and at what point did she obtain the right to claim that for her own? Why should the male not have a right to the destiny of his gene equal to that of the female? Not only does he lose his seed to her unwillingly but also has to endure 2 decades of financial burden in order to give her the pleasure in bringing up his seed as she sees fit.(thanks to the FC) The law leaves the male with a horrible choice in #2.
A reality check….. Leave a female without the right to have food and water and rest assure she will break the law and steal to survive. Leave a male without rights to his gene and he will break the law to survive. Logic at work of course.
This is a very controversial subject.
Probably the subject that the media has the most difficulty in talking about.
I have plenty to say on the subject myself.
I use the terms, pregnancy without consent, the female version of rape.
However I am in a position that I should respect process.
Amy Adams, or cohorts, at some point will get my submission on her desk.
It makes claims against the government, that she must examine.
I have made a proposition to help address this issue.
I could post what I have said, as it is relevant to this thread.
But I am also interested in how my submission is dealt with.
Tick tick tick goes the clock.
How do you deal with Crime Against Humanity claims?
Morality and law ?
When people refer to life and death issues, they assume that anything that causes death is bad … and anything that causes life (apart from rape) is good.
I think a consideration should be granted as to what the male wants with regard to his ‘options’involved in a ‘falling pregnant’ scenario
We could agree that today, his ‘options’ are nill – he has no say and he should.
I don’t see these two situations as comparable or illustrative of anything at all triassic.
For a start, the law does not allow a woman to use “maximum force” (ie: kill) a rapist – she can only use what a jury would consider “reasonable force”, or else she is likely to be convicted of murder.
Furthermore, unless your second scenario involves obtaining the man’s sperm without his consent, he bears 50% of responsibility for the resulting pregnancy in my opinion.
If you have sex without using a condom then you have to accept the potential risk.
I acknowledge that many of us suffer from insufficient blood supply to run a brain and an erection simultaneously, but that does not prevent us from taking steps to ensure that we don’t father unplanned children.
There may be a valid argument that where a woman is dishonest about contraception and the man does not choose to be a father, there may be a reduction or exemption from child support liability. But that is very different to enforcing an abortion.
I don’t think that even the manufacturers make the claim that condoms are a contraceptive. Reduce risk, yes.
Statistically in a normal (sex life) male and female relationship, by the time the female reaches the age that fertility ends the couple will have had 5 children, if the only ‘contraception’ is condoms.
That puts in in the category of pregnancy device.
This is men’s greatest (present) hope for contraception.
As you can imagine, nobody in government will want this.
Hence there is virtually no support by governments for this project/research.
Birth rates are a significant input to GDP etc.
If males were protected from unplanned pregnancies, or pregnancies without consent, then the birth rate would dramatically drop. Possibly by half.
Government policy affects birth rates as well. There would need to be stronger incentives to have children. These could be targeted to good family structures, rather than what is presently happening which is enormous sums spent on benefits.
@JP I think where Triassic is going with this is …
1. I don’t want your genes in me, I have the right to fight you off.
2. You have my genes in you, I want the right to fight you to take them back.
Here is a Danish idea to cope with low birth rates.
Forget family planning.
Manipulate things so they have more unplanned pregnancies.
Now that’s moral?
All for the benefit of grandchild-less mothers?
John, #7 states it succinctly. To go into detail with this argument would consume 100GB of text. But just to expand it a little let me say that
both scenarios are complex. The etymology of ‘rape’ has undergoine a radical change since feminism redefined it. In some cultures it is moral and within the law to force sex upon your wife. We, in the West, have rightly changed that. The moral point being that a wife has rights as to who enters her body including her husband. There is an element of honour and respect around this point that is absent from the rape of a prostitute where the man may simply refuses to pay on the basis he doesn’t think she was worth it. i.e. The goods and services failed to perform to the advertising. The law makes no distinction. Your comment around a female committing murder if she kills the rapist has, in case law, always been where the killing occurs AFTER the rape. Can’t myself see a judge or jury finding a woman guilty of murder if she kills whilst he is attempting penetration.
In the case of abortion, the law provides for the woman to terminate up to 24 weeks. What she is terminating does not belong just to her. I concur with you in that both may be 50% responsible and therefore should either wish not to proceed then termination must occur in order that the status quo remains. It’s not JUST about finances. Some men choose to donate their sperm because it makes them feel good that their gene is ‘out there somewhere’. Other men feel quite differently about their genes. They sense it is a part of THEM (in a spiritual sense) and as such they must protect and nurture it should it become fully human. Therefore, if, within the 24 week period, he feels he has seeded an unsuitable female then surely he has a moral right to choose termination.
The problem with legal paternal surrender is that it is unworkable without a government picking up the tab for all.
In abortion debates we give primacy to the women’s rights, as the one most affected by the pregnancy who can actually speak. While we assume every child wishes to be born, we take their silence as if this makes their rights negotiable. This is highly influenced by a need to have abortions where the mother/child are at risk and/or not viable. Men have not been considered, even to be an informed party, and as a rule of thumb need not be involved in a pregnancy.
Child support has considered men (Payees) but privileges the receiving party, by not only having the women’s rights (generally), but also the child’s right to support. As the child moves from the mother to father, or extended family, then the balance of the rights moves with them, (but not the base assumption that women are not expected to work and if did would make less money).
These two issues have been siloed, and as such men are only granted rights upon birth.
In some jurisdictions eg Ireland, this is unrelated to genetic material, ie the married husband always pays and the interloper never gains rights.
Men’s rights and men’s interests are always less than the pregnant women, but there must be a practical way to give voice to the male partner where disagreement happens. One study from NZ suggests that in the first instance men supporting their partners in an abortion can be made to feel more welcome, asked to express their own views, sharing the burden of the choice, as opposed to being a passive supporter of the partners decision. Often these guys report being seen as a hindrance to medical staff.
I’m somewhat colored on this as my partner rang her mum first (a controlling woman) who without missing a beat suggested (told her to) abort, and by the next phone call had made all the arrangements on her behalf. Luckily after this she told me and my reaction told her she would be supported and she could have our son.
Male contraception may be more fruitful than discussions on unworkable rights can end with guys feeling shat on by the hand dealt them. Philosophically the arguments may be sound, but practically I’ve yet to see a viable path.