I was watching an episode on SVU: Law & Order and there was a man who was exposed for manipulating multiple women into getting pregnant. He would develop relationships with them, be very charming, and knew exactly what to say to lure them in. He didn't abuse them but he did deceive them by persuading them to not use birth control and poking holes in the condoms.
His objective was NOT to be a great "father". It was more to gain fulfillment and "power" by passing on his genes. He could care less about the fact that he had cheated the women of their lives.
You can read more into this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_coercion
Statistically, women are more of a reproduction abuser than men are. And in some cases, reproduction abusing relationships do involve physical abuse.
So the question is....if the tables were turned and the women are the ones who are deceiving the men (given that we have proof) what should be their punishment?
-Is enforced abortion reasonable? -Would the guy still have to pay child support? -Jail time? (for men or women)
asked Mar 15 '14 at 20:41
The question concludes:
...what should be their punishment [for women deceiving their sexual partners]?
This clearly refers to governmental intervention, i.e., retaliatory use of physical force by the government against a "wrongdoer." What kind of "wrongdoing"? The question alludes to "sexual" and "power-seeking," but doesn't say much about precisely how one seeks power, other than referring loosely to "deception." The most concrete description of "deception" given in the question is the following, apparently from an episode of the TV show, "Law and Order":
He would ... be very charming, and knew exactly what to say to lure them in. He didn't abuse them but he did deceive them by persuading them to not use birth control and poking holes in the condoms.
Evidently (I haven't seen that show myself), the guy wanted, and could afford, to have multiple women dependent on him. How could a rational woman agree to such terms, in which there is no marriage commitment by the man to be a father for the child, nor even to remain exclusively with one woman at all? The woman chose to refrain from using birth control measures. It's also very unclear what "poking holes in the condoms" would accomplish. If the woman is already suspending her use of birth control, why would she care about whether or not a condom was being used? If the woman is acting irrationally, perhaps out of desperation and "wishful thinking," where is the justice in exonerating her and placing all the blame on the man? He offered her something; she wanted it; she knew she could become pregnant; how is she being "cheated"? It sounds like neither of them is being very rational in their use of human reproductive capacity.
The question refers to the Wikipedia article on "Reproductive coercion." In attempting to identify what "coercion" encompasses in this usage, the article explains:
Reproductive coercion [refers to] threats or acts of violence against a partner's reproductive health or reproductive decision-making and is a collection of behaviors intended to pressure or coerce a partner into becoming a parent or ending a pregnancy. Reproductive coercion is a form of domestic violence....
"Violence" sounds very clear and specific at first glance, but I was a little stunned by what I found when I followed the Wikipedia link to the article on "Domestic violence" (underline emphasis added):
Domestic violence can take many forms, including physical aggression or assault (hitting, kicking, biting, shoving, restraining, slapping, throwing objects, battery), or threats thereof; sexual abuse; controlling or domineering; intimidation; stalking; passive/covert abuse (e.g., neglect); and economic deprivation.
Note the subtle shift in the meaning of "violence" from concrete physical actions to the motivation (power-seeking) of the alleged "wrongdoer." He is to be judged as "wrong" not for what he did, but primarily for why he did it.
If the main focus of the question is on governmental intervention, i.e., the retaliatory use of physical force, the foregoing description of "violence" clearly goes far beyond the strict limitations on physical force that Objectivism advocates. One of the most distinctive aspects of Objectivism is that it differentiates very sharply between issues that involve the initiation of physical force against others, and issues that do not -- i.e., between issues of political or legal principle and purely moral or ethical issues. Objectivism very strongly opposes the use of physical force in issues that do not involve a clear, preceding initiation of physical force against others.