Should rapists have parental rights? [W:30]

[joko104]

Most, not all, prolife men on the forum insist that a rapist has an ethical and should have a legal right forcing the child, teen or women he raped and impregnated to endure pregnancy, all the physical, psychological and economic harms, alter her reputation personally, and even accordingly disfigure, cripple or even kill her. We all already know this is what they advocate on behalf of rapists procreation rights thru rape.

About 40% of prolifers want rapists to have total procreation rights prior to birth including that right to procreate by rape protected by law. But what about after birth, does his parental rights still continue?

What about parental rights? Should it be required to label the child a rape-baby and the mother a rape-mother? Should the mother have to allow the rapist access to the child? Should the child have to be told?

 

[nota bene]

You're beating a wild and crazy horse here.

 

[JayDubya]

Rapity rape rape raparoo. :roll:


Pro-tip: THIS ISN'T AN ABORTION THREAD. You people need a rape forum where you can talk about rape all day, as you obviously want to.

 

[joko104]

It absolutely is specifically an abortion thread topic as the question is if a woman is banned from abortion due to a rape pregnancy, then what about then the child and mother of that child in the future? Abortion greatly reduces this scenario as in many instances the girl/woman would not have access to an MAP or otherwise can't or are in denial, but at some point a pregnancy becomes known and understood including to others.

 

[nota bene]

Rapity rape rape raparoo. :roll:


Pro-tip: THIS ISN'T AN ABORTION THREAD. You people need a rape forum where you can talk about rape all day, as you obviously want to.

I'm beginning to see your point. And the point of this particular thread is to advance the invention that pro-life men are rape-enablers and fans because they secretly wish to punish women for being "loose." :roll:

 

[ecofarm]

What about parental rights? Should it be required to label the child a rape-baby and the mother a rape-mother? Should the mother have to allow the rapist access to the child? Should the child have to be told?

Once again, the answer is obvious: Give the child to a random 15 year old.

 

[joko104]

I'm beginning to see your point. And the point of this particular thread is to advance the invention that pro-life men are rape-enablers and fans because they secretly wish to punish women for being "loose." :roll:

The question is a simple one. If abortion is banned and in relation to rape, thus many girls and women forced to have the rapist's child, what rights then should the rapist have?

I told my opinion of it the question in the OP and my vote is NONE. Do you have an opinion or just want to deny rape produces pregnancy are impossible like that wacko religious rightwing politician declared?

 

[JayDubya]

About 40% of prolifers want rapists to have total procreation rights prior to birth...

a) Where do you derive this statistic from?
b) What the hell does this even mean?
c) No, this isn't an abortion thread. Unsurprisingly, it's a flamebait thread, but it's not appropriate for this subforum either.

 

[joko104]

a) Where do you derive this statistic from?
b) What the hell does this even mean?
c) No, this isn't an abortion thread. Unsurprisingly, it's a flamebait thread, but it's not appropriate for this subforum either.

That stat? Approximately 20% of the public opposes abortions including for rape pregnancies. Approximately 50% of the public oppose abortions, but to a limited degree. Do the math and it's 40%.

The relevancy to abortion then is obvious. IF girls/women are forced to have rapists babies, what would and should be the effect of such anti-abortion laws?

It is 100% relevant to discuss what would and should be the real-life and legal tangible effects of anti-abortion laws if passed into law. And to debate the ethical issues too. Granted, prolifer's such as you don't give a damn about what happens to the child or woman after birth, but despite you views they both then are "humans" for which what rights are allowed, required and denied upon each in relation to anti-abortion laws is relevant - VERY relevant.

In fact, what happens to the woman and child after birth from a forced pregnancy and delivery AND WHERE THE LAW SHOULD STAND ON THIS is THE most relevant question about abortion of all. I understand some forum prolifer's will attempt to troll this into the basement. But this is absolutely a critical REAL LIFE set of issues about what the effects and ethics of banning abortions means. The baby and woman do not cease to exist after prolifers got their way - rather you like pretend they do.

 

[Excon]

The poll does not have my answers.

If he is required to provide child support. Yes. If not, only if the mother wants it.
If the child later wants contact. Yes.

 

[ChrisL]

Hell no, he shouldn't have any rights. He committed a crime and impregnated a woman against her will. He should be in jail for a very, very long time anyway, so this shouldn't even be an issue. Unfortunately, rapists usually don't get very long prison sentences.

 

[ecofarm]

That stat? Approximately 20% of the public opposes abortions including for rape pregnancies. Approximately 50% of the public oppose abortions, but to a limited degree. Do the math and it's 40%.

20% + 50% - (15% x 2) = 40%

He's right, folks!

 

[JayDubya]

That stat? Approximately 20% of the public opposes abortions including for rape pregnancies. Approximately 50% of the public oppose abortions, but to a limited degree. Do the math and it's 40%.

Uh-huh. So you derive it from unsourced voodoo math. Figures.

But let's be clear - you're saying once again that by opposing abortion one supports rapist's rights to rape, and that remains flaming, stupid nonsense. Rape is a crime, and rapists that are convicted are thrown in prison, they don't get parental rights, and no one here is advocating changing that.

And, of course, Rape pregnancies remain such a astronomically small, statistically insignificant number that I hasten to remind you and your rape-obsessed brethren ONCE AGAIN that the relevance of your favorite topic of rape to the topic of the abortion debate remains somewhere between meager to null. :roll:

 

[joko104]

The poll does not have my answers.

If he is required to provide child support. Yes. If not, only if the mother wants it.
If the child later wants contact. Yes.

So as a condition of child support the mother has to involve him in the baby's life?

If a person stole money or merchandise from a business, would that person not have to pay restitution unless the business was required to all him/her could to the business?

 

[joko104]

Uh-huh. So you derive it from unsourced voodoo math. Figures.

But let's be clear - you're saying once again that by opposing abortion one supports rapist's rights to rape, and that remains flaming, stupid nonsense.

I have never said prolifers support a rapist's right to rape. Rather, that some prolifers support rapist's procreation rights. Whether than is those prolifer's motive is an irrelevancy, only the actual effect. The distinction is obvious as is your distortion of it.

 

[joko104]

20% + 50% - (15% x 2) = 40%

He's right, folks!

I don't have much education, but you didn't do well in math, did you? Converting 20% of prolife of 100% total on a 50prolife/50prochoice to 40% of 50%prolife is not difficult math.

But whatever the number is, it doesn't change the ethical and legal issues concerning forced pregnancies and child birth in terms of the long term, even lifelong, effects on the child and the mother.

 

[ecofarm]

I don't have much education, but you didn't do well in math, did you? Converting 20% of prolife of 100% total on a 50prolife/50prochoice to 40% of 50%prolife is not difficult math.

I'll admit, I made that equation up with basically random numbers.

 

[Excon]

So as a condition of child support the mother has to involve him in the baby's life?

If you wish to look at it that way. Yes.
Why should he have to support something and not be allowed to be involved with it? That is a ridiculous.

The fact that he had a control issue, or a sexual issue, or committed a crime, dose not mean he can't be a good father.

If a person stole money or merchandise from a business, would that person not have to pay restitution unless the business was required to all him/her could to the business?

The comparison really isn't there.
He didn't steal anything. While supposedly done forcibly, he also gave his sperm freely. :mrgreen:

 

[JayDubya]

I'll admit, I made that equation up with basically random numbers.

So basically, you did exactly what he did?

 

[ecofarm]

So basically, you did exactly what he did?

Yeah, but I did it to be funny.

 

[X Factor]

I have never said prolifers support a rapist's right to rape. Rather, that some prolifers support rapist's procreation rights. Whether than is those prolifer's motive is an irrelevancy, only the actual effect. The distinction is obvious as is your distortion of it.

Really?....

In my strong opinion, the lofty slogans and platitudes all boil back to logic created by men to justify rape, subjugation of women and forced pregnancies. That is the core motivation and underlying purpose - and the actual attractive of the logic to many men who use such logic as "sanctity of life." The underlying logic of "pro-life" is pro-rape - shielded behind religion and faux ethics slogans.

 

[joko104]

In the OP I told my slant of it. Each person can tell theirs. Attempts to derail are just irrelevancies. Courts do have to sometimes face this question now, but banning abortion for rape would likely greatly increase how often.

Rape pregnancies and births do happen, but laws generally do not address such issues - meaning each of the thousands of judges across the country each play their own King Solomon and their personal beliefs, values and even craziness. It would seem there should be a universal legal standard and guideline. What should it be? Do those change if the woman no longer has the option of ending the pregnancy via anti-abortion laws? That's the topic.

 

[Excon]

He committed a crime and impregnated a woman against her will. He should be in jail for a very, very long time anyway, so this shouldn't even be an issue.

Of course I am speaking opinion as you were.
If rehabilitatable, punishment should be no more than 5 years. As society is the main concern, a longer punishment serves no purpose to society or the person.

Unfortunately, rapists usually don't get very long prison sentences.

Where do you get that idea from?

 

[joko104]

Really?....

Thank you for proving I have never posted "prolifers support a rapist's right to rape." Ever.

You can keep playing this game all over the forum if it gets your rocks off. I have repeatedly explained exactly what I meant. Regardless of the motive, platitudes and slogans, forcing a girl or woman to have a rapist's baby is pro-rapist rights in terms of procreation - absolutely as a truism. Since that is a known truism, it also is an underlying logic - and that logic is hidden behind religion and faux ethics slogans.

You will not find anywhere where I have stated pro-life supports legalizing rape - ever.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course I am speaking opinion as you were.
If rehabilitatable, punishment should be no more than 5 years. As society is the main concern, a longer punishment serves no purpose to society or the person.

Says you. I'm sure the victim (s) feel differently. You don't know what it's like, so of course it's no big deal to you. The purpose is to separate an attacker of women from society to keep women safe.

Where do you get that idea from?

You can learn a lot of things here.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF