ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
A rapist could stop his victim aborting?(49 Posts)
For the second time Paul Ryan has co-signed a bill that would allow rapists to sue their victims to prevent them from gaining abortions.
Here is the article from first time round - http://jezebel.com/5934975/paul-ryan-sponsored-a-bill-that-would-allow-rapists-to-stop-their-victims-from-aborting
And new one http://jezebel.com/5975076/paul-ryan-once-again-sponsors-the-bill-that-would-make-it-possible-for-womens-rapists-to-sue-them
Ultimately they want to make abortion totally illegal, no exceptions, even in the case of a mother and foetus both dying without an abortion (and they want to ban IVF too).
My uninformed suspicion is that they don't care about human life, they just want a continuous supply of cute newborns for the rich couple adoption market.
There are no words.
Disgusting! Paul Ryan is an arrogant arse!! What does the future hold when you get people as ignorant as that? Quite worrying really.
Yes, Trills and Fastidia are right, it's much more logical and in some ways better because now it is clear : support raped women or non-viable zygotes. Choose one only.
Depends. Are they developing into male or female foetuses?
Presumably the ultimate solution will be that the person who doesn't want the child will be able to disclaim it and the potential baby in the woman could be removed and then placed elsewhere for the father to bring up. I would imagine that feels more fair - if you accidentally get pregnant - (much more common situation) let us ignore rape for now when technology gets to the point when if the mother wants the child aborted the father could instead via a similar operation have it removed and planted in a host surrogate and then he is solely responsible for it. That is probably a gender neutral fair long term solution when science is that advanced.
A fair solution would be to hand over a baby to a rapist? Not on my book.
I think Xenia means if science develops such that a foetus could be transferred to a man for incubation.
Which will happen round about the fourth of never.
Even if it could happen Xenia, why should the male still get the decision about the fetus being incubated over the woman? Especially when it in includes her having an operation
I was not talking about rape cases. If the operation is no different from the abortion then I do not see why the man should not be entitled to that child half of which is his.
Surely that is fair - that each of you have the right to decide if that child lives and that if one of you want it to survive and science allows the removal and putting elsewhere to incubate which I don't think will be impossible in a few years then the person who wants that life to continue should have the right to continue it. Women have babies men don't want all the time the world over and always have. I was just gettnig a bit of gender fairness into it.
An abortion of an early fetus would not require an operation for removal. And in your scenario some poor fucker (and I do mean poor) would be paid to have a operation to have a baby implanted in them. We don't pay people for operations.
Ff I don't think Xenia is envisaging a female surrogate, but transfer to the father or to a giant petri dish.
Any operation that requires intact, live transfer of the foetus is likely to be more risky to the mother than an abortion as it currently stands. I am also unaware of any current research into this area - it seems like the sort of thing an ethics committee in experiment design would counteract given my previous point of increased risk to the mother, but I am open to evidence that such research does go on.
could be removed and then placed elsewhere
She might mean that doctrine but knowing xena's usual posts I suspect elsewhere is a woman who has been paid to surrogate.
There was a doc on R4 with an anti-abortionist saying they are forgetting about outlawing abortion in US as they can't overturn Roe vs Wade but just concentrating on introducing so much legislation that clinics won't be able to comply with and so close all available abortion clinics down. She was quite open and proud that this is the new tactic.
And it is working. The last one in the state of Missouri will probably close soon due to new rules and they interviewed women who couldn't afford to travel out of state and had other children that couldn't be left long enough. They also interviewed families who hadn't had abortions and there didn't seem to be anti-abortionists flocking around to look after their babies. Once they are out of the womb they don't seem to give a fuck about them.
Ooh, ff, you are right, I somehow misread a line of her earlier post
My point about the ethics of developing a procedure to transfer a foetus in this way still stands, plus is supplemented by the current UK rules on surrogacy.
The surrogate would not be allowed to be implanted without up to date STD checks on the parents Which would be impossible without the mother's permission.
Which goes back to a far greater point that the mother would have the right to refuse the transfer operation and opt for an alternative medical procedure (ie abortion) ON HER BODY. As long as abortion is legal in the UK there can be no argument for forcing the alternative.
<wonders what the world would be like if anti-choicers could only have a right to protest if they tithed their income to disadvantaged mothers and families>
I had an online argument with an anti abortion supporter, I asked how many babies she had personally adopted. None, but if someone was going to have an abortion and said her taking would stop the abortion she would take it.
So applying to adopt, having multiple homestudies all that, no need. She will just wait for someone to offer her a child.
I don't see why if mothers every week of the year force children on men that men don't want (see countless mumsnet threads about how to persuade husbands to have baby number 3/the accident etc) if medicine in due course permitted my idea the surrogacy or implantation in fake womb in a lab or even into a man or the husband's new wife or whatever should not also be an option.
Just because this is a website for women does not mean we cannot support the rights of men and in general issues of fairness between the sexes.
I think the argument over STD checks is not a hurdle. You could implant abroad, you could implant in a lab without a host mother if technology gets that far. Plenty of people pay to use surrogates in other countries as it stands.
We don't know if the operation I envisage would be more dangerous from the other than an straight abortion. It may not be so.
It would also help in cases where the father wants the child and the mother doesn't. I was talking to someone whose ex wife had aborted their first child (only child) without telling him just after their marriage as she had had a work promotion. She only told him after. Things were never very good after that, not surprisingly, divorce later. When someone tricked him into a pregnancy after just a few meetings he was so happy. Bought her a house, put money in trust for the child. Not even done a DNA test on it - silly man - it might not be his child.
The scientific invention of a Womb in the lab, are the thoughts I had decades ago, when I went through the most horrendous torture giving birth, before epidurals were around.
They are fascinating issues. If I wanted triplets at age 60 for example (just joking.. although my last birth was twins...) if I could find eggs of a close female relative I could hire a womb abroad for that.
I think you can now create a baby which is made up of 3 people's DNA too. Science is really exciting and often laws and morals are way behind so it's good to think about these things in advance so society and law makers have their views on them ready for when the developments come.
I was trying to find something about implantation of human baby into an animal host but I need to get to bed. I just found this although I've rather gone off topic.
Xenia, honestly, scientifically, the operation would be a lot harder. To extract the foetus, keep it alive, implant it into another womb where there was no placenta (say a 12 or 13 week foetus).
It really isn't something I would expect any ethics committee ever to approve. You cannot experiment on embryos in the lab beyond a few days after creation (I think around 14 days ie the mother might not even have taken a PG test) and any experiments of transfers, even between two willing volunteers, would result in a lot of dead embryos/foetuses much further along than that.
I think a lot of people, especially Republicans, are just disgusting, in cases like this. I'm not sure of my state's laws surrounding abortion (I live in Connecticut if anyone knows more) but I know it is one of only four states that have declarations protecting a woman's rights to abortion, and isn't on of the nineteen to enforce waiting periods, or prevent abortions for teenagers, and therefor it would be called a fairly good state for abortions., and yet, from some research, it isn't even close to the laws in the UK, or many other countries. It is disgusting how many people hold views like Paul Ryan's or that they are allowed to voice their opinions so loudly and publicly.
Paul Ryan is one of the reasons Obama got a 2nd term in office.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.