If a wife is raped and gets pregnant from the rapist, is it ok for the husband...

[Mistame]

The point is that since it all can fail, you are not avoiding pregnancy unless you are not having sex with fertile women as a fertile man, you are simply risking pregnancy.

Dealing in absolutes is inherently irrational. 0.001% is effectively foolproof.

Neither parent has to take care of the child in USA.

This is only valid in cases where the woman chooses to give up the child. Outside of that scenario, the father is responsible and if he doesn't pay, he'll lose his license and possibly go to jail. (Or mother in some states)

The father signed away his parental rights as well.

And he was only able to do so because you did.

[Spryte]

Least he can do if he bloody raped her...

You didnt even read the original post did you.

[Sesshou]

He's free to divorce her, but he doesn't get a say in what she does with her body.

Wow, first two post in response to the OP are the same crap. The OP wasn't asking if the husband should have a say or if it is acceptable to force the woman into anything. The question is whether or not WANTING it is ok. You know what he does get a say in? His own damn opinion. It is and should be her choice, but he has every right to want something.

[Goondicker]

He can't force her (and shouldn't be able to).

He can divorce her.

She has the option to save their marriage and she's choosing her faith instead. What kind of god wants you to keep your rapist's baby over your marriage? None that I could believe in.

I feel bad for him for getting sided for a bogus reason. I feel bad for her for being raped. I feel bad for the kid that will have a tough childhood.

To answer your question: I'd leave her since she is substatially more committed to her religion than the marriage.

[Dazu]

Big thing to remember in something like this would also be the kids upbringing. If the husband isnt ok with keeping it. Chances are he wont be a good father as his level of caring and affection will be lower. So id say divorce could be the best outcome for all parties in some cases, but this is entirely a case by case basis that the husband and wife need to work out.

Atleast divorce and wife remarrying someone ok with the kid has a chance for a happy home, whereas staying together simply for the sake of it would create a unhappy home, tension, stress and likely emotional and mental issues later on for everyone including the kid.

[Deleted]

When you "financially abort" a child, you just force taxpayers to become the second parent of your child.

Not really, if a woman can't take care of her offspring it should go up straight for adoption.

- - - Updated - - -

My two statements are entirely consistent. Women shouldn't be irresponsibly promiscuous. Men shouldn't inseminate irresponsibly promiscuous women. Men who do inseminate irresponsibly promiscuous women should pay for their kids instead of insisting that it's not fair and that taxpayers should foot the bill. Men who shirk fatherhood after getting women pregnant are trash.

This is total bullshit, you are saying that woman shouldn't be irresponsible, but if they happen to be irresponsible anyway you do not punish them for it, but you rather have males give them money so they can continue lead their lifestyle. And then you go and state that males that do not want to become father are trash.

- - - Updated - - -

Women have an actual option to terminate it without creating a burden for others. Men don't. This is a product of biology and can't be legislated away, no matter how much some may wish to do so.

In the absence of a drunk driver, a person driving responsibly would not have harmed. If you are male, you can't have heterosexual sex in the absence of a woman.

Males can not get pregnant and therefore have nothing to do with the offspring if they do not want to, at least that is how biology wanted it to be. So do not think that your biology defence makes any sense. We as a society make males pay for their offspring, we just went overboard as to when they should pay.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, "she" because you said mother. And that's a female.

Adoption is a thing, but we don't take children away from their parents for being poor.

And why not? Why should we not take children away from parents that can not take care of them? Should we not do what is best for the child? That seems to be the mantra everywhere, so, what is best for the kid is to have 2 parents that love and take care of them.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a fine idea if they have sufficient funds. If they don't, who should we turn to next? The obvious answer to anyone other than the most anti-responsibility people is the nominal father.

Forced adoption at birth, if you can't take care of your child you should not have that child.

I'm not a feminist. I'm not an equalist. Men and women aren't equal, which is why efforts to pretend they are end in pathetic failure.

What you are is not being honest. If you really where to subscribe to this chain of thought then a male should not have to pay for their offspring if they didn't want to. Because man and woman aren't equal, right? So its the female that gets a child, why use affirmative action on this and have males pay for it?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think lose my mind when people suggest that women shouldn't be irresponsibly promiscuous. I agree that women shouldn't be irresponsibly promiscuous.

If you truly believe that then you would hold these irresponsibly promiscuous woman responsible, but you refuse to do this. You only hold the males responsible for it.

- - - Updated - - -

There are men that are angry that a woman is the sole decider on if a child HAS to be taken care of or not because she can abort or not.

They then want to quell this anger by trying to have a say.

I understand the motivation, but anatomy isn't going to change just because you are angry at it.

The biology defence is a stupid defence. If you really want to honour the biology then males never should have anything to do with their offspring if they do not want to. As you know, they are not the ones who get pregnant. But we as a society found this to be unreasonable so we fixed this by having males pay for everything, and this is about as lopsided as biology was in the first place. So if you want biology to determine who should have to raise the child then females will have the short end of the stick, don't think you'd want that.

- - - Updated - - -

How about this:

Man: I don't want a child, so if something goes awry, I bear no responsibility should you choose to keep the child.

Woman: *I do not consent to your sperm being inside of me, so if you deposit your seed, I will have you prosecuted for rape.

Here's the thing: If a man were to so chose, he can guarantee with nearly*100% certainty that there will not be a pregnancy. Use a condom, and do not ejaculate into*your partner's vagina. Grats on never having to face this issue. In the alternative, have each woman you plan to sleep with sign a contract freeing you from all responsibility before the act. Sure, it won't stand up in court, but you'll never have to test it, because no one will ever fuck you.

Grats also on not grasping the basic reasoning behind being a responsible individual. If the woman you want to have intercourse with goes back on her promise to abort (good luck having that conversation!), then pay your child support and sue her for fraud.

Your whole post comes down to "just do not have sex if you are a male" and that is just very unreasonable.

If you want to talk responsibility then how about the responsibility to not have a child when you cant take care of it!? It seems to me that you only hold the male responsible for having sex, not the female for wanting to have a child that she can't take care off.

[Revi]

I think it's okey to want that. You shouldn't feel pressured into raising someone elses child.

She's free to choose what she does with it, but he's free to choose whether or not he's involved.

[Deleted]

A woman under sharia rule is stoned to death for being raped

I highly doubt this is true, that seems absurd.

[Zolaris192]

I highly doubt this is true, that seems absurd.

Look it up lol

[bergmann620]

She has the option to save their marriage and she's choosing her faith instead. What kind of god wants you to keep your rapist's baby over your marriage? None that I could believe in.

That same faith probably makes it tough for her to square what her husband doesn't understand about 'to death do us part'. And isn't what kind of god you believe in kind of outside of her frame of reference?

[Halyon]

You didnt even read the original post did you.

I did. What's the point?

[Spryte]

I did. What's the point?

The husband, the person that you were implying gets to pay child support, did not rape his wife.

[Halyon]

The husband, the person that you were implying gets to pay child support, did not rape his wife.

Oooh, I misunderstood then. Derp.

Yeah, then he shouldn't be forced to raise the kid if he doesn't want to, and he can divorce her. But the rapist should still pay child support regardless.

[Shadowferal]

If a wife is raped and gets pregnant from the rapist, is it okay for the husband to want her to get an abortion? Interestingly enough, a good friend of mine is in this exact situation. It's a difficult situation for all involved. She is very religious and is adamant about keeping the baby; however, he doesn't want to raise a child not his own, especially one who shares its genetics with a rapist. This has caused a huge rift in their relationship, and he's considering leaving. What would you do in this situation?

Man has a say, but it's not the biggest say. That's ultimately for the woman to decide.

Well, if he loves her then it shouldn't be an issue...much.
If he lets the crime come between them then the man allowed the rapist to come between him and his wife for the rest of his life. Bad enough that he already has done just that once before. And where was Mr Husband then? Which I suspect is the true problem. He wasn't there when she needed him the most and now wants to abandon her when she needs him more than ever.

pfft....ain't no man...

[bergmann620]

Not really, if a woman can't take care of her offspring it should go up straight for adoption.

If that were the case, most*couples who have children would lose theirs, too. How many people do you think have the extra $20K and the desire to adopt someone*else's kid?

This is total bullshit, you are saying that woman shouldn't be irresponsible, but if they happen to be irresponsible anyway you do not punish them for it, but you rather have males give them money so they can continue lead their lifestyle. And then you go and state that males that do not want to become father are trash.

No one is trying to 'punish' anyone. We're trying to make sure that the people most proximally responsible for the child are the ones tasked with the responsibility of that child. Further, you (any many others in this thread) are trying to portray abortion as this thing that you just do- like it's a button you press and *boom* no more pregnancy. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Males can not get pregnant and therefore have nothing to do with the offspring if they do not want to, at least that is how biology wanted it to be. So do not think that your biology defence makes any sense. We as a society make males pay for their offspring, we just went overboard as to when they should pay.

The biology defense isn't that males are somehow biologically responsible for child support- it's that the biological process involved in reproduction puts tremendously more strain on the females of our species than the males at almost every*stage. Thus, as a civilization, we have taken a few tiny steps in the direction of not being fucking wild animals and evening out that burden.

And why not? Why should we not take children away from parents that can not take care of them? Should we not do what is best for the child? That seems to be the mantra everywhere, so, what is best for the kid is to have 2 parents that love and take care of them.

1) Because we'd first have to draw the line regarding what 'take care of them' means.
2) Because taking kids*away from parents that can't take care of them rather than simply giving aid to the parents isn't often what's best for them.
3)*Because taking them away also isn't the cheapest solution for the state.
4)*Adoptive families can still get divorced and can still fall on hard times. How many homes do*you think kids should be in while they grow up?
5) Because there's no fucking way people on the pro-birth side of the agenda are going to allocate the funds to make sure we take care of children after they're born.

Forced adoption at birth, if you can't take care of your child you should not have that child.

That's idiotic on it's face, for the reasons I outlined above, and so many others.

If you truly believe that then you would hold these irresponsibly promiscuous woman responsible, but you refuse to do this. You only hold the males responsible for it.

I like how you still don't get what 'responsible' is. In the scenario we've been discussing, the woman remains the primary care giver and is financially responsible for her child. The man is asked merely for financial support.*

The biology defence is a stupid defence. If you really want to honour the biology then males never should have anything to do with their offspring if they do not want to. As you know, they are not the ones who get pregnant. But we as a society found this to be unreasonable so we fixed this by having males pay for everything, and this is about as lopsided as biology was in the first place. So if you want biology to determine who should have to raise the child then females will have the short end of the stick, don't think you'd want that.

Maybe you should re-evaluate the foolish notions you're carrying around before attacking others' arguments.

Your whole post comes down to "just do not have sex if you are a male" and that is just very unreasonable.

If you want to talk responsibility then how about the responsibility to not have a child when you cant take care of it!? It seems to me that you only hold the male responsible for having sex, not the female for wanting to have a child that she can't take care off.

Quite arguing against things I've not said. Men (and women) have a number of defenses against unwanted children. Then can know their partner and have had a full and frank discussion about the protocol in the case of an*'oops' pregnancy. She can use the pill. They can use a condom. He can not ejaculate inside her. At the end of the day, virtually every action we take has some sort of risk attached to it.

And, one more fucking time... What do you not understand about the responsibility of actually being a sole caregiver? Even in the case where a man provides child support, that support is still the smaller part of being a parent. Even in committed and 'liberal' relationships, the woman bears the brunt of the responsibility of childcare and running the household. **

[Reg]

From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

[Shadowferal]

From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

Which doctors believe that a woman can self-terminate a pregnancy?

Or was that the answer? "Witch-doctors?"

[Deleted]

Man has a say, but it's not the biggest say. That's ultimately for the woman to decide.

Well, if he loves her then it shouldn't be an issue...much.
If he lets the crime come between them then the man allowed the rapist to come between him and his wife for the rest of his life. Bad enough that he already has done just that once before. And where was Mr Husband then? Which I suspect is the true problem. He wasn't there when she needed him the most and now wants to abandon her when she needs him more than ever.

pfft....ain't no man...

You are such a hypocrite

[Deleted]

Yes, let's increase the taxpayer burden in order to shrink the taxpayer burden, to say nothing of what a horrific breach of individual rights this is.

Yes, because the state clearly pays for all adopted children, the adoptive parents will have a free ride.

Worthless hypostatization from a scientifically illiterate person.

So all you do is trying to attack me instead of having a reply. I didn't think you would have though, you never do and always resort to this line of posting.
You are the one who brought up biology as a defence, and now it comes back to bite you in the ass. Reality is, according to biology males have nothing to do with the offspring as they are not the ones who are pregnant.

[boyzma]

From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

Seriously? You think legitimate rapes are rare and a woman can shut it down and self abort? I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. Please educate yourself.