Rape, as defined in the 21st century, is any sexual act perpetrated against an unconsenting participant. We describe a sexual act as any act granting sexual gratification or release, and most acts involving the genitalia. Rape is not purely about sex; it's about power, about forcing yourself onto someone that you know doesn't want it or you. By these standards, forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is, in a purely physical manner, different to rape, but according to basic principles is pretty much the same thing in theory. In both cases you are taking away the woman's choice and denying her what she wishes because of what you want.
While forcing to be/remain pregnant against their will is not the same as rape, it is similar in a couple ways.
You are stripping a pregnant person of their choice, much like a rapist will do to their victim, and you are forcing them to do something with their body that they don't want to do, like a rapist will do their victim.
Except in this case, forcing someone to be pregnant is more accepted, despite the subtle-yet-similar concepts that this can be applied to.
I have trouble fathoming how someone could force a woman to be pregnant without her consent in any other way, but rape. Regardless I do not see how someone can do something to that woman to make her pregnant without it having come from something sexual, even if it is just a sperm insert type of thing. It is still wrong.
It seems sensible that in order to impregnate a women, one would need to perform a sexual act with her of some description. Even if the act is artificial insemination, it would by definition become an unwanted sexual act and therefore rape. This topic is disgusting and repulsive, and of course forcing pregnancy on someone is rape.
Maybe this is a badly worded question, but it seems to me like a backdoor way of getting support for abortions. Forcing someone to become pregnant is undoubtedly, undebatably rape. However, not allowing an easy way out of a pregnancy entered into with consent is not. It all depends on whether the woman is pregnant by choice (and unintentional pregnancies are still consensual pregnancies, unless a product of rape).
She opened her own legs. Forcing her to carry out the life that is inside of her is not the same as tying her down and raping her. Yes, rape happens and it's a very sad sad crime. But please do not punish the child for the sins of the father.This is half your baby, too. Not just his.
Rape is a direct sexual act on someone else, without consent. Rape isn't always done for sexual gratification, but it is sexual in nature. Not allowing an abortion isn't sexual. Barring rape or malfunctioning birth control, the mother also consented to unprotected sex, and would be aware of the risks of that decision, so it's not really without her consent either. I really don't see how not allowing abortions is the same as rape in any way other than both may result in pregnancy/children.
Denying a pregnant woman the opportunity to kill her child with an abortion is not "forcing pregnancy" on her any more than making child molestation a crime is about forcing pedophiles to remain celibate. Children (all human beings) have a right to the EQUAL protections of our laws. The question in this pole ignores the rights of the children being aborted.