Do rapist women own their zygotes?
If someone had impregnated herself with a rape would she have the right to keep the complexity the zygote might turn into?
I don't believe anyone has any exclusive rights to any particular genetic code, but stealing genetic material is an infringement on rights to property (and inviolability, [un?]naturally). I guess there are not many norms to these cases but this article just got me thinking.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...-fathers-child
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Are you serious?
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
You do need to question if a rapist is a suitable mother.
Nope. Rapists, pedophiles and rapist-pedophiles should be in jail.
Let's assume that only rights are property rights and it's been a few months since the unlawful insemination. How about it?
Would you consider it fair to force abort someone?Originally Posted by xerx
Always and forever.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
If I had stolen fungus growing on me, would it be my property?
Can I take your harvest if you stole my seeds?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
If a baby is past the legal age to abort, then probably not. S/he is alive and could be put up for adoption if the parent doesn't want him or her. The rapist could be made to pay child support. I guess it's possible to argue, in the case of a female rapist, that the rapist could adopt the child and take on the entire burden of paying financial support (I'm not sure I'd want to be that kid, but w/e...).
If a baby is still a non-distinct clump of genetic material, then the rapist should have none of the say in the decision to abort. This is probably the only time when violating a woman's bodily integrity has a case (when she's a rapist).
Last edited by xerx; 06-16-2013 at 06:40 AM.
Rapist women will be incarcereted (or will have to go through trial, etc.), and this punishment will however give them the "right" to keep the stolen zygotes, I would guess. A similar issue could be music, videogame or more generally information-related piracy.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Well, my instinct is that, since the genetic material to create the baby was misappropriated (i.e., taken by force), that no she should not have a right to the product of her trespass. However, since there is no way to "undue" the theft (property can not be returned), repudiation is difficult to assess. Depending on the speed of the arbitration process, it may be too late to terminate a pregnancy by the time a verdict can be rendered. The victim would have to have some kind of weight in the matter as well, considering they, too, have a legitimate claim of ownership to the zygote in question.
Yet at the same time, what right would the victim have to force an invasive procedure like abortion? If the non-aggression principle is taken to its logical extreme, force is immoral in any direction; that is, whether used defensively or offensively. I don't believe it's ethical, in a libertarian sense, to force a procedure upon an unwilling person (assuming they are unwilling), even if the reason they are put in that position in the first place was by forcing themselves upon an unwilling person(s). But I suppose that depends on whether you believe eye-for-an-eye is an appropriate legal doctrine.
Female rape victims will sometimes opt to keep their baby, though this can be touchy since the act of rape is so violent and traumatizing, the baby serves as a constant reminder of the pain and can lead to instances of Post-Partum Depression. There may be medical risks involved in pregnancies as a result of the rape, depending on the circumstances. If it was familial rape (e.g., an act of incest with closely related blood lines), the risk of congenital birth defects is considerably high. Spousal rape also comes with its own set of difficulties, but has happened and is a prosecutable offense in most (if not every) US jurisdiction. In these and similar cases, quality of life for the child ought to be a consideration before rendering a determination.
So yeah, very touchy subject and one I hadn't considered before. Lotta ins and outs to consider from a legal perspective. Good thread, bro.
Last edited by Capitalist Pig; 06-16-2013 at 02:43 PM. Reason: apostrophe deleted where it shouldn't be
In my country the woman always has to decide if she wants to keep the child. There is no forced abortion wouldn't be aloud by the constitution. Think it's like that in most countries.
Swiss Civil law article 298: 1 Are the parents not married then the mother has the parental care. 2 Is the mother immature, incapacitadet or deaththen the guardianship authority gives the parental care to the father or to a guardian. Decidid upon what's better for the child.
In my country rape of man is legaly not possible the victim has to be a woman raping a man (also by another man) would be sexual assault but the max penalties for rape and sexual assault are the same so it doesn't really matter
Sex threads galore.
Not really, no. You would have to murder yourself first and then forcefully(?) take the fungus off your body. Problem is you would be wanted for first degree murder on yourself and burglary. So no, it wouldn't be your property.
Not to mention wanted for rape providing you would want to rape yourself first, that is before murdering and stealing from yourself.
Last edited by Absurd; 06-16-2013 at 03:39 PM.
Well regardless of social implication, if I got raped by a woman and she had a child, I'd let her keep the child. Mainly because men produce millions of sperm on a daily basis, if however the rape caused significant psychological setbacks though I would demand compensation of some sort. In any case I wouldn't want to be responsible for the child, this would be the real issue in my eyes, a woman raping a man, and then forcing him to be the father. A man should be able to choose when they feel like having a child, the same as a woman should be able to choose and not get forced into a situation where they must be enslaved to upbringing a child.
People will differ on opinions but with society where it is now, I don't see children as such a critical thing. There are tons of children everywhere and tons of population everywhere. I don't really see an issue globally with the ability for humanity to populate, the big issue I see is more with quality control, that is stupid people, poverty, an inability to raise children in good situations and an inability to provide for the needs of the population. I'm not pro killing off the existing population or anything, but I'm skeptical that just fucking and popping off a child makes a person a saint. I personally don't want to have children unless I have the focus in my life to do a very good job at the task. Prematurely forcing that through rape is probably not the smartest thing.
If it's solely an issue with donating a fuck and some sperm, I really don't see an issue because once again the typical male will produce millions of sperm and genetic material in their lifetime. With a women, this would require carrying a child for a year or so, and significant setbacks -- so its a bit different. The only issue I could see is the rape negatively impacting the man psychologically and altering their sex drive at that level, in which case the impact would be more severe. In such a case I'd demand compensation or some sort of justice.
This is all beside the issue of whether the woman is going to be a good parent. There are a number of options here. Idyllically maybe she is going to be a wonderful parent, in which case that's wonderful, you get to be the result of another life without burdened by excessive responsibility. Or more commonly she will be a horrible parent. This presents several options: abort the child and save it from a horrid existence, keep the child but move it around to be taken care of by the system or a foster parent (which can be hard on the child and may yield bad results), or you simply allow the mother to keep the child and hope for the best. There are even issues with determining whether a person is going to be a good parent. It's not like you can deterministically project this, and even if you could it would require criteria on what it means to be a "good parent". Is it good to raise a child with a happy childhood? Or is it better if the kid is a bit unhappy but successful and a doer, a real pillar of the community? What criteria is "good" criteria?
It's a complex issue with little absolute answers, which is why I'd rather not extend my feeling beyond my personal sphere. In such a sphere I'd say I would only want to be responsible for being the parent of a child I choose to have, and further I wouldn't mind if someone used my genetic material, and finally I would demand compensation of some sort if the rape involved psychological trauma to myself.
Add forcing him to get pregnant as well.
I wouldn't. Same for forcing birth giving.
This. What if the rapist was on the run with a child for a few years after?
It's truly ambivalent if you ask me.
I call myself batyote and I fight crime at night.
No you can't but you get money for the stolen seeds. But depends on the legal system
I don't think a woman rapist should be forced to abort her unborn child. However, I would agree that she has no right to demand child support of the victim.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
Abortion is wrong debate solved.
The problem is there are two different supports one support the mother can ask for because she has to care for the child(time) and one support the child itself can ask for(clothes, education etc). In this case I think when the child wants support from the father, the father should be able to make the mother(the rapist) liable for that money because she forced him into fathership.
Another idea, why not give the child from the mother to the father if he chooses so?
I think he would have a good chance like i wrote in post nr. 10
I'm not entirely certain what you're trying to get at. Are you envisioning a scenario where the father actually wants and has custody of the child?
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
No I mean that the mother for herself even though she needs time to raise the child doesn't get any aliments from the father when they're not married or were so the child has to make the charge against the father who doesn't want to pay(when the child is minor the mother can do that for the child). So in our case where the mother is the rapist the father could make her liable(because she raped him and he didn't want to have a child) for the aliments he has to pay to the child. And therefore he doesn't have to pay anything.
I am envisiponing a scenario where the child lives with the mother(rapist) and they want money from the father(victim)
...What? o.0 That's pretty well-covered by my original statement that the rapist/mother has no right to demand child support from the victim/father.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
Yeah but you have to take the liability detour. Could be different in the US though and also in NZ because they have common law too.
What liability detour?
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
Sorry it's only my brainfucked law spoiled mind. Because liability is in civil obligation law(section liability) and aliments in civil law(section family law) in my country at leat.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about legal matters. Perhaps you can clarify this if necessary, but I don't understand the need for the victim/father to make the rapist/mother liable for his end of the child support if she's already the one supporting the kid. She's already the sole supporter, so whatever money she has is in-theory going to the child already; it would be pointless to make her doubly responsible, as she's not necessarily going to materialize extra money out of thin air. I'm coming at this issue from the hypothetical scenario of such a law (her not being able to demand child support) already being in place. Are you addressing how one might implement such a law (and cover loopholes) or address that kind of situation in your pre-existing legal system?Sorry it's only my brainfucked law spoiled mind
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
I am writing about existing law. The mainpoint is that the child itself(supported by a guardian) can charge the father to pay money to it(the child is not guilty because its a product of rape). Then the father can not just say to the child i was raped but has to look for someone esle who he can make liable for the damage(child as damage in liability law). The funnyside is that the mother actually would be liable.
E.g a doctor who treats a woman who wants her eggleader cut. He makes a fake and the women gets pregnant. He can be made then liable at least for a part of the further costs the child will produce. In our case it's the rapist mother who's liable for the aliments of the father. IRL he doesn't have to pay like you said but he has to make her liable for the unwanted fathership first else he has to pay.
OK. We're coming at this from different directions, then. No problems here.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
Yes we are actually in agreement for one time
Well, we didn't entirely disagree in the other thread, either. We're coming at that issue from different directions as well.Yes we are actually in agreement for one time
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
I know
Tell monsanto. They have patented life.
I make the effing world go round
luckily these bastards are withdrawing from europe
When I dream of london, I feel healthier :-]
I make the effing world go round
Hah. What did you guys use? We need some.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
The rapist woman owns part of it.
I didn't read the thread (yet), but a few thoughts
- The idea of people having property rights over unborn human beings in a situation where the slavery of people who have been born is illegal and considered morally wrong by pretty much everyone
- The unique thing about a persons' genes really is the combination - the same genes exist in other human beings, too
- A gene is an idea/abstract concept/a structure rather than a physical object. The ownership of concrete physical objects is pretty simple, but the idea of someone owning something non-physical sounds impractical and weird
- Would people think differently about a situation where the woman didn't rape the man, but took the sperm non-aggressively (found a used condom)
Well, intellectual property rights are sketchy and I find it unreasonable to apply that ownership them to lifeforms.
...
A very fruitful aspect, indeed.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
