The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Ducky
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,310 times Debate No: 24985
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

MasturDbtor

Pro

Generally a woman is entitled to have the right over her own body, including whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

However, when a woman rapes a man she violates his right to his body, and so rightly should be considered to forfeit her right over her body in regards to any resulting pregnancy.

In cases of rape the needs of the victim are paramount. A man who is raped by a woman, subsequently getting the woman pregnant will already be dealing with a great deal of psychological trauma from the rape. If the woman has an abortion the man may feel responsible and that may worsen the psychological trauma.

Since the woman violated the man's right to choose she should lose her right to choose, and only be allowed to have an abortion if the man consents to it.

Clarification

Before someone starts into this debate trying to say that men can't be raped I'll point out the fact that yes, men can be raped. A man can have an erection against his will, and fear can be a contributing factor, especially in cases of rape. Even if the man is sexually aroused, if he has decided he does not want to have sex, that is rape.

http://condor.depaul.edu...
Ducky

Con

I accept this debate, and, since my opponent has not provided sources for his outline, I will provide both practical reasoning, and sourced reasoning.

1: "However, when a woman rapes a man she violates his right to his body, and so rightly should be considered to forfeit her right over her body in regards to any resulting pregnancy."

This seems highly impractical. Let's just consider that this man has just faced incredible trauma, he will now likely have some sort of vengeance or payback in his mind, pride take center stage. Given the control over someone else's body, forcing the woman to go through in having this child will seem like a form of justice, the child isn't considered at all in this scenario.

2. "If the woman has an abortion the man may feel responsible and that may worsen the psychological trauma."

Is this sourced? Speaking from my personal standpoint, if this happened to me, I wouldn't feel responsible, and that wouldn't feel like my child as I didn't consent. I already do not have legal responsibility to take care of this child as the non-consensual victim here. Thus, if the woman got an abortion the responsibility would likely not take a toll.

And how would the man know? He and the woman are likely already far away from each other. If there isn't already a heated legal battle involved, then I definitely do not see a man, or a woman in a reverse situation, want to be around their rapist. Fear isn't really an issue, since that would be blurring the line between a rape, and some sort of domestic or relationship abuse, which is an entirely different issue. I haven't heard of somebody attacking and raping a woman sticking around them, or vice versa. I have a feeling that it would be similar reversed.

3. "Since the woman violated the man's right to choose she should lose her right to choose, and only be allowed to have an abortion if the man consents to it."

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, again, this is impractical. Even if he forced her to go through with the pregnancy, and give birth to this child, nothing is stopping either of them for putting this child up for adoption. Really, all pro is implying is that this is justice, this is revenge. In a legal sense, it would be much more practical for the woman to have a forced abortion, then face prison time.

To re-iterate, the child should be take center stage, and should be the most important aspect. If neither of them wants the child, but the man forces the woman to go through with the pregnancy, you just have another child up for adoption. This isn't beneficial to anyone but the man's sense of pride and revenge. I urge my opponent to show how this would be beneficial in any other area but emotional.
Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Pro

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 Revenge

If 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.
Ducky

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Pro

Rebuttal: Child's Best Interests Is Still to Live

Even though "fetus" is only a potential child my opponent has already said that the child's best interests should come first, which I agree with. Just because the child is not born yet doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the child first.

Clearly to live at all is better than not at all, making the child being carried to term and born in the child's best interests.

My opponent says that finding out that they were a "forced birth" may scar the child. However, this depends on how the child looks at it. The child may see it as "he only made her give birth to me to punish her" or the child may see it as "he knew I was alive, so he made sure I was born". Even if the man just wanted to punish the woman he's not going to tell the child that, he will say that the thought of his son or daughter's life being ended in the womb disturbed him.

Furthermore, if this law was passed it's unlikely the child would ever learn that his mother planned to have an abortion but was refused one. Even if he knows he was the product of rape he will likely never learn that his mother would've had an abortion if she had his father's consent.

And even if the child was "scarred" it is still better to be alive but with some emotional scars than to have never lived at all. People with emotional scars still have happy memories and experience joy at times, which makes it worth it to be alive.

Rape Victims Often Feel Guilty Over Being Raped

I thought it was common sense that rape victims sometimes feel responsible for the rape, and so would not need a source. But since you insist:

http://www.ibiblio.org...

This is a general problem that rape victims, male or female may face. My other source just points out that a male faces the additional problems that come from gender stereotypes.

It is easy to sit there and say that because he's a victim he won't feel responsible, because it seems logical. Well, feelings are NOT always logical, especially when you are subjected to a major traumatic event like that.

If the man feels responsible for being raped it follows that if the woman aborts the fetus he may feel responsible for that as well.

Pro-Life Or Pro-Choice It's Irrelevant

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. 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.

And most people who are pro-choice still are not pro-abortion. One popular pro-choice slogan is "safe, legal, and rare".
http://www.lifenews.com...
Even the president uses that term.

Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean they will have no feelings for their "unborn child".

Rarity Does Not Mean We Shouldn't Have A Law

My opponent suggests we shouldn't have this law just because it is to regulate something that is rare.

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. Just because it would only apply to a rare number of cases is not a good reason not to have the law unless there are significant costs that outweigh the benefits.

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"?
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rebuttal to "man could just as easily pursue an actual relationship"

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.

Rebuttal to Threatened-Abortion Rebuttal

"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".

"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."

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.

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. 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.

Feeling Guilt For Forced Pregnancy

Whether the man is pro-life or pro-choice most people are not pro-abortion, and will feel sentiment towards the child even before it is born. Even if he does it out of revenge any guilt he would feel later will be tempered by three facts:
1. She did after all rape him.
2. Her imprisonment is going to be far worse for her than not being able to have an abortion.
3. Had he not done that then the child would've never been able to live in the first place.

Any guilt would therefore likely be mild. A life being lost or never begun is more likely to lead to feelings of guilt than making a woman who is about to spend most or the rest of her life in prison go through with a pregnancy.
Ducky

Con

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...
Debate Round No. 3
MasturDbtor

Pro

Difference Between "Abstract Reasoning" and "Real Life"


When pro-choice people say that life doesn't begin until birth or viability they are typically talking about this in the abstract, distanced from any actual abortions. Even without changing their position in real life the person may still feel an emotional attachment to the growing life inside the woman. Here I use the term "life" as it is indisputable that a fetus is alive, whether it is a person with rights is another matter.

People Can Have Affection For Animals

People can have affection for animals, and they are not people. A person may even generally believe for example that it should be OK to kill pigs for their meat, but they may grow a special bond with a specific pig and then protest vehemently if someone suggests killing it for its meat.

One Can Hold That A Fetus Is A Person But That Abortion Is Generally Acceptable


http://atheism.about.com...


An example of this line of reasoning is here:
"Whether the fetus is declared a person from a scientific, religious, or legal perspective, this would not necessarily mean that abortion is wrong. A woman could assert a right to control her body such that even if the fetus is a person, it has no legal claim to use it. Could an adult claim a right to being hooked up to someone’s body? No — it might not be ethical to refuse the use of one’s body to save the life of another, but it couldn’t be forced by the law."

However, this viewpoint is not inconsistent with the viewpoint that by raping a man the woman by violating the man's right to his body ought to be considered to have foresaken any right over her own in regards to the products of that rape.

If I steal a machine from someone and I create things with that machine a court will likely hold that both the machine and its products must be given back to me. Similarly, the woman has stolen the man's body and his sperm and with that sperm has produced the man's son against his will. The child no longer belongs to her, and by law if convicted her body belongs to the state in so far as her body is required to be transported against her will into a prison for a set period of time, meaning denying her an abortion is not taking away any rights that aren't already being taken away.

Reasonable Inferences Are Acceptable Evidence

Just because the source does not explicitly state self-guilt related to a fetus does not mean we can not infer based on common sense that there could easily be such self-guilt.

The source does reference that the victim often blames themselves for the rape. If you blame yourself for something then you are likely to blame yourself for any "product" of that as well. If the rape didn't happen the child wouldn't exist, and wouldn't have been able to be aborted. Hence, if the man already blames himself for being raped he will likely blame himself for the abortion.

Increasing The Odds of The Case Being Prosecuted

Furthermore, if the man blames himself he may not feel he is justified in prosecuting. But if the life of the child is at stake and he feels any empathy for that life, regardless of whether he considers abortion morally wrong or if it's just "Because of his personal feelings towards his potential future child" then he may then feel more inclined to prosecute if it means he can block her from having an abortion. Males being raped is currently underreported. Passing this law may increase the reports.

There Is No Logical Reason For Any Difference

""However, ...it is theirs."

"Most people"...arguments."

It is a reasonable assumption. Why would it be any different for this subsection of this population? Because the child was unplanned? People still feel feelings for children who were unplanned. Because the child is a product of rape?

Sometimes women who are raped and choose to keep the baby care for the baby very much.

An example here:
http://www.my-diary.org...

Similarly, there will be men who feel the same way. Notice she says next to the Lord her daughter is the most important thing in her life. It's not because she's anti-abortion (which the webpage doesn't address one way or another) or she would've likely put her child up for adoption.

Even without an example just from sheer numbers we can expect some men who are raped to still have feelings of empathy for their unborn child.

More Harm Than Good?

The woman is a rapist, one of the most vile sorts of people. How much is the "harm" done to her by making her continue her pregnancy worth? Considering going through a pregnancy takes around 9 months and she will likely spend around 10 years of her life or more in prison (even if it's 5 that's still a lot more than 9 months) then this is a very small "harm" to her and weighs comparatively less in terms of justice than it would to impose it on an ordinary non-raping woman because she is a rapist.

Most people are not going to feel much empathy for the "poor rapist being forced to carry a child to term", but will for the rape victim and the child. People already aren't going to feel much empathy for the "poor rapist being forced to go to prison" and prison is clearly much, much harsher than having to carry a child to term.

Rebuttal

"Lawyering,... lose."

Con implies that it matters whether or not there is political controversy. So would con consider legalizing murder if it was both rare and one major political party wanted to legalize it?

How about a better example? Let's say embezzlement was found to be exceedingly rare in a country. Say, 0.01% does not change the fact that it is wrong and that more good can be done by prohibiting it than allowing it?

Logic

"My ... route. (http://www.webmd.com......)

So, ... sense."

One's ability to reason is not a black-and-white thing. The man may be able to reason in some ways well but not others. It is true that the trauma of the rape is likely to skew his emotions. This could either include a deep caring for the fetus or a deep hatred. But if there's a deep hatred he'll more than likely let it be aborted. If he cares he'll more than likely let the fetus live. His empathy is still a positive good even if it is based off of some illogical placement of blame on himself, the victim if the woman were to choose an abortion.

""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."

Not at all. The state could grant a "stay of abortion" preventing the woman from seeking an abortion after charges are filed until one of the following happen:
1. She is acquitted.
2. She is on the last day to legally have an abortion and still has not been convicted.

Such a provision would not infringe on the rights of innocent non-rapist women to have abortions since it makes sure that if she turns out not guilty she can still have an abortion.

"I seriously...resolution."

Mental health issues are complicated and can have varying effects and may be apparent or not apparent, so he may be able to pull it off. Furthermore, even if things seem a little weird people aren't likely to question that he's honest about getting married. That's not very good manners. Even if it's unlikely to work the rapist might not know that and being subjected to this additional trauma would not be good for the rape victim.

"Pro, the link provided says, quite clearly, that rape victims often feel like it's their fault of they should have changed something."

Which will be less and less likely over time. Furthermore, self-blame does not necessarily mean you hold the perpetrator blameless. More likely he would blame both himself and the perpetrator. Himself for not being strong enough to fend off the attack, and the woman for being an evil rapist.

"Which really begs the question of why this forced pregnancy is necessary to begin with?"

I have addressed this already several times. See above arguments.
Ducky

Con

Ducky forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
MasturDbtor

Pro

All arguments extended.


Vote Pro!
Ducky

Con

Ducky forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ducky 4 years ago
Ducky
Also, I'd like to apologize for my opponent, but due to my life well, moving at a fast pace, I wont be able to debate for some time, so vote pro simply on the reason that I can't finish the debate.
Posted by Ducky 4 years ago
Ducky
I ask that all voters forgive me for the "Inherently bad" argument about murder. Yes, it is, and so is rape, both which deserve imprisonment. I was thinking of abortion when writing that.
Posted by mark.marrocco 4 years ago
mark.marrocco
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

http://www.thevoicebw.com...

http://www.wcpo.com...

Here are a few instances, but I also recall a case where a man tried to rob a store, and the woman there beat him up, took him hostage in the basement, and raped him repeatedly. Yeah.
Posted by mark.marrocco 4 years ago
mark.marrocco
@angrymen, not often, but it has happened.
Posted by Ducky 4 years ago
Ducky
No no no, when I said that, I meant that, it would be more practical, if either side were forced, to force an abortion so the offender can face prison time.
Posted by angrymen 4 years ago
angrymen
So this means that the government gives abortions to prisoners in prison? I have never heard of that though.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
Wow, this is a new one. I love it!
Posted by Ducky 4 years ago
Ducky
I neglected to post sources for the first round, as I had implied. I did, however, mean that I would post sources as a rebuttal, mostly involving legality.
Posted by angrymen 4 years ago
angrymen
Men can get raped by women?
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
wut
No votes have been placed for this debate.