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.

Oh, and the bill is called 'The Sanctity of Human Life Act' though the potential mothers lives aren't included in that, obviously.

Trills Fri 18-Jan-13 10:34:26

I think your comment on "cute newborns" is a bit trivial and distracting from the main point.

There are 4 ways that the rules on who gets to decide about abortions could go:
1 - the woman gets to choose
2 - the man gets to choose
3 - both have to agree to an abortion
4 - both have to agree to continue the pregnancy

In the case of 2, 3, and 4 how exactly is it determined that the man asserting his "rights" could prove that he is the father? Can they do DNA tests in vitro with no risk to the foetus? It doesn't seem practical. If the woman disagrees with what the man wants she could (unless she has literally been locked up) claim to have had a one-night stand with someone whose name she doesn't know.

===

My own side-point: If you believe that abortion is murder, and that foetuses have a right to life, then it's more consistent and more honest to say that you think abortion is wrong no matter what circumstances conception occurred under. Rape exceptions have never made any sense to me.

hairychristmasandahappynewyear Fri 18-Jan-13 11:19:12

All I have to say about this is that I think the bill is disgusting and an affront to the human rights of women.

FastidiaBlueberry Fri 18-Jan-13 12:26:20

Absolutely agree with Trills. It is totally inconsistent to believe that it's OK to abort in the case of rape but not in other cases. Either a zygote or a foetus or a baby has a right to life at the expense of its carrier's life, health and long-term welfare, or it doesn't. It doesn't cease to have a right to set up home in her body against her will, just because she didn't consent to the act that put it there - how it got there is irrelevant.

The forced-birthers are inconsistent in many things, but not in this one IMO.

feministefatale Fri 18-Jan-13 15:48:35

Paul Ryan is a weeping pustule on the ass of America singing. I mean this is horrible but doesn't quite compete with the fact that he doesn't think "danger to the life of the mother" should be a reason for an abortion angry.

He is genuinely in my eyes an evil piece of shit.

I think there are 30 something states in America where a rapist can petition for custody of "their" child too. Fun fact of the day.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 18-Jan-13 17:42:22

I agree with Trills re consistency

This does seem a different twist - not a campaign for an outright ban but the father, especially where the father has assaulted you, being able to curtail what freedom you have under the current law is horrible.

FastidiaBlueberry Fri 18-Jan-13 18:08:16

Yes it is an odd twist, you're right.

It almost looks as though they are particularly keen to ensure that rapists can continue to abuse their victims. I'm guessing it's because they particularly like rapists and they particularly don't like women.

feministefatale Fri 18-Jan-13 18:34:38

Or maybe it's because they don't particularly see rape as a real thing. Or that if a woman got pregnant it could be from rape

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Fri 18-Jan-13 18:39:43

his position makes it fairly clear that his main concern is the ability of men to control women, rather than the interests of the foetus ...

WantsToBeFree Sat 19-Jan-13 10:48:04

I am stupefied. This is disgusting beyond words. I am concerned by the repeated references all around to Rapists' rights-whether it's their right to "humane" treatment even after pulling a woman's intestines out, or their right to stop their victim aborting. Women's rights are completely lost in the debate.

Would he force his wife or daughter to keep a baby conceived through rape? Or is his sickening views only apply to everyone else.

Anniegetyourgun Sat 19-Jan-13 10:58:51

Well, as we all know, it is a scientifically proven fact that women can't get pregnant from real rape, so she must have deep-down wanted that baby really. They're saving her from herself.

<spit>

Trills Sat 19-Jan-13 13:54:53

I assume that the people promoting the bill have not used the word rape at all, and are spinning it as preventing evil women from aborting a baby that the father wants to love and care for..

meditrina Sat 19-Jan-13 14:16:41

An abortion following rape was an important piece of case law in UK in 1938, when Dr Alex Bourne was acquitted of performing an 'illegal' abortion on a 14 year old who had been gang raped. So I can see there are grounds for treating rape victims differently. But I see it as a strong argument for facilitating access to abortion in such cases.

trustissues75 Sat 19-Jan-13 18:58:19

It's hardly surprising; Paul Ryan and his cronies are a bunch of self-serving, privileged, self-righteous misogynists who will do anything to get the right wing evangelical vote ever since the Republicans decided their best strategy was to use hot topic, divisive material to gain the votes of narrow minded and significant slice of the population during Regan's reign. I actually have acquaintances (women acquaintances) who support these people and vote for them. Sickening, utterly sickening.

AnyFucker Sat 19-Jan-13 19:00:46

I wonder what that equally stupid fucker who said "women can't get pregnant if they are raped" would say to this.

trustissues75 Sat 19-Jan-13 19:02:56

He'd find a way to explain away what he originally said....that's what they always do.

monsterchild Sat 19-Jan-13 19:10:46

I'm not sure how this would actually work because in many states when a child is conceived through rape the man has no ability to claim a child or make any decisions regarding the child. Also, by coming forward to make this claim, if the woman has already reported the rape, he is making himself available for prosecution as well.

monsterchild Sat 19-Jan-13 19:12:23

Also, the rapist would have to know the victim pretty well to know that she has actually conceived, and learn this in time to get a court order to stop her from aborting.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sat 19-Jan-13 19:20:35

Monsterchild, even if the abortion had already taken place, the prospect of being sued afterwards is pretty horrible. And in some states I think it does (deliberately) take a while to get an abortion - required to have a scan
First and come back another day etc.

monsterchild Sat 19-Jan-13 19:30:54

I agree, TheDoctrine, it's very hard in some states to get an abortion, and from what I have seen, even going to a clinic that performs abortions among other women's health services, regardless of the reason you're going, you'll be harassed by protesters who assume abortion is the number one birth control method.

Again, the rapist would have to know the victim pretty well. Which tells me that Paul Ryan probably assumes most rapists know their victims and can follow up on their situation. It's infuriating.

especially because there are only cuts to services to these same children once they are born.

Seabright Sat 19-Jan-13 22:15:07

Most rapists do know their victims, don't they? I thought "stranger rape" was relatively rare? And if they knew each other, it probably makes the rapists case that it was consensual all the more likely to be believed, so no real threat of prosecution,if the rapist comes forward.

I am open-mouthed at the continual obsession of Americans towards abortion and the total bollocks spouted and reported over there.

SolidGoldFrankensteinandmurgh Sat 19-Jan-13 23:05:14

The motivation is to strip women of human status and have them legally designated as walking incubators. These people genuinely feel that men should be able to stick their dicks in women and impregnate them whenever they feel like it.

trustissues75 Sun 20-Jan-13 07:39:50

What solidgold said: this is exactly what they are going for.

Sunnywithshowers Mon 21-Jan-13 21:28:57

Fucking hell.

There are no words.

snowiceslush Tue 22-Jan-13 15:43:51

Disgusting! Paul Ryan is an arrogant arse!! What does the future hold when you get people as ignorant as that? Quite worrying really.

JuliaScurr Tue 22-Jan-13 15:49:07

<despairs>

JuliaScurr Tue 22-Jan-13 15:52:34

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.

Anniegetyourgun Tue 22-Jan-13 16:16:52

Depends. Are they developing into male or female foetuses?

Xenia Tue 22-Jan-13 16:21:28

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.

Seabright Tue 22-Jan-13 18:13:22

A fair solution would be to hand over a baby to a rapist? Not on my book.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Tue 22-Jan-13 18:58:25

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.

feministefatale Wed 23-Jan-13 14:23:11

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

Xenia Wed 23-Jan-13 14:55:41

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.

feministefatale Wed 23-Jan-13 15:32:40

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.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Wed 23-Jan-13 18:29:22

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.

feministefatale Wed 23-Jan-13 19:18:42

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.

DoubleYew Wed 23-Jan-13 19:33:32

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.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Wed 23-Jan-13 19:43:22

Ooh, ff, you are right, I somehow misread a line of her earlier post blush

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.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Wed 23-Jan-13 19:45:22

YY DoubleYew

<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>

feministefatale Wed 23-Jan-13 20:52:01

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. confused

So applying to adopt, having multiple homestudies all that, no need. She will just wait for someone to offer her a child.

Xenia Wed 23-Jan-13 21:22:48

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.

Xenia Wed 23-Jan-13 21:24:34

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.

digerd Wed 23-Jan-13 21:46:24

Xenia
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.

Xenia Wed 23-Jan-13 21:55:35

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.

www.marymeetsdolly.com/blog/index.php?/categories/21-Animal-human-hybrid

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Wed 23-Jan-13 22:05:21

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.

skratta Thu 24-Jan-13 00:33:27

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.

LineRunner Thu 24-Jan-13 00:37:35

Paul Ryan is one of the reasons Obama got a 2nd term in office.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now