I assume you have the same objections with women. All kinds of sluts crying rape to get insurance money.
Then I think they should pick a random person from the phonebook and settle him (or her) with child support. At least then you won’t visit the same guy with two crimes. Even out the sucks of life a bit on the whole population.
Would you support a system where random people are assigned child support bills for children without two supporting parents? That’s even more fair, after all, since all the random selectee gets hit with is a bill, unlike the victim who would be raped and billed.
Then have a lottery and let some completely random person foot the bill. It’s just as arbitrary and unfair for assigning it to a victim. Unless you want to argue that the victim is somehow “responsible” for what happened to him?
ETA: Haha, a threefer simulpost with the “random selection” idea.
Maybe not philosophically, but de facto I’m afraid it amounts to the same thing. Forcibly restraining a women for nine months until she comes to term, with all the concomitant medical risks of pregnancy ( even if minor ) comes close enough to ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ I think it is effectively a non-starter. Never gonna happen, nor should it.
Sucks for your hypothetical guy, but there you go. Biology trumps the perfect world once again.
I used punishment and restitution together (though neither logically fits) - which you conveniently ignored.
It is more than an opinion. It is the current law of the land. Zygotes/embryo/fetuses do NOT have personhood/citizenship rights. Those are conferred at birth, or if you really want to split hairs, at viability. Personal philosophy may vary, but courts use the law of the land when distributing justice.
The 50% genetic contribution which led to the creation of a zygote, providing half the instructions for the assembly of the zygote into a baby, after nine months of her body doing 100% of the physical biological work. And yes it affects your argument. A genetic relationship does not necessarily confer any parental rights. Consider gestational surrogates, ‘custody’ of stored embryos and biological fathers’ rights in adoption proceedings (their power to contest adoption hinges on their familial ties and actions, not just genetics).
A very telling mishap.
No victim restitution (that I’m aware of in modern, civilized society) has ever allowed for violation of the body autonomy of the perpetrator. How is mandatory pregnancy or abortion ‘restoring’ or ‘repairing’ what was destroyed by the rape? The victim’s “psychological integrity” you argue is at stake, sounds more like a matter for civil court - e.g. suing for the cost of therapy or lost wages due to PTSD, etc.
Yes, sovereignty. From you link:
Individual people have sovereign authority over their bodies, body parts and biological processes. Even convicted criminal retain these rights, outside of capital punishment and forced feeding (both ethical gray areas). Granting a victim the right to force a medically unnecessary procedure or reduce someone to an involuntary biological incubator, is granting them authority --** ‘external control, controlling influence’** – over the biological processes of another person.
Again, what victim has ever had this right?
Are you going off on a tangent about custodial rights of non-rapist parents now? :dubious:
It is as simple as that. You are trying to create a circumstance where a woman no longer is able to decide what happens to her body, particularly being forced to carry through a pregnancy, like a brood cow. There are no such circumstances.
I don’t think you can avoid getting into it; for me at least, it’s the crux of the matter. She’s not “cutting his child in half,” she’s terminating a pregnancy. There is a vast legal, medical, and ethical difference there. A child is not hers to kill, but the pregnancy is hers to terminate. Until the fetus is conferred the rights of personhood like EverwonderWhy says, it’s just a pregnancy, and women are allowed to terminate pregnancies with whatever caveats apply in this hypothetical state.
A more relevant issue - should those raped by space aliens be allowed to shoot down their spaceships?
You have been misinformed and mislead by people you trust. No, the fetus is not pulverized at any point in the process; less than 0.2% of abortions performed include any sort of cutting of the fetal tissues, and never “pulverized” by an ethical medical doctor working according to current practice guidelines. For one quarter of abortions in the US, the uterine contents (including the fetus) are not vacuumed out at all, they fall out after the woman takes a pill or series of pills.
You, on the other hand, are entirely correct.
A man being raped by a woman is a horrible thing, but he doesn’t get the condolence prize of stripping her of her human rights, nor should he.
What are you talking about? What insurance money?
It isn’t some random guy, he’s the biological father. Now if he decides to take one of the many avenues to give up his parental rights, so be it. But this idea that he should be able to just refuse to pay child support is not practical in the real world; one where male rape victims are far outnumbered by deadbeat dads looking for an excuse not to pay. Can you imagine the flood of people claiming they were too drunk to consent, and therefore should not be required to pay child support?
More importantly, courts have already ruled on many situations exactly like this, and other similar cases. Most times, a man will be held responsible for non-biological kids he had claimed at one point even if he later realizes it’s not his. Additionally, male rape victims have been made to pay child support. To quote this post:
In the first case, the court ruled:
I feel this was an “unfair”, but sound ruling given the circumstances.
What’s so special about the right to one’s body? We strip other rights of criminals all the time, a criminal in solitary confinement doesn’t exactly have the right to free association, and your right to privacy ends (to a certain degree) when the state issues a search warrant. We reserve plenty of right to restrict the right to bear arms of dangerous felons, and rightly so.
Obviously in this case it’s hairy because of timing windows, provability, and so on, which makes it impossible in real life. But on a philosophical level, we strip, limit, and mutate the rights of criminals all the time. Why can’t we decide (again, on a purely philosophical level) to limit the right to one’s body in cases where that right was abused (and, in fact, actively violated for the victim) by the criminal?
The STATE may strip criminals of some of their rights. Victims may not. And medical care is a right that even the State does not strip criminals of.
Which helps demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of our version of child support.
Personally I’d consider it morally justified for the raped male to simply kill the woman in question, since the State has abrogated the social contract in this situation leaving him on his own. The only justice he’ll ever have is what he makes on his own, and he’ll likely be punished less for killing her than just sitting there and taking it if he kills her before she gives birth and while still underaged. The perverse incentives in this setup are huge.
I re-read it to be sure and it is, actually, THE dumbest.
wow.
Only in your twisted delusional fantasy world would this be an incentive to kill someone. The fact that you think murder is morally justifiable in this case says a lot a about you, but little that anyone with a passing acquaintance with your posting history would be surprised by.
Hardly. The incentive is obvious. Less punishment by the State, and the only way to get anything resembling justice.
And you think that it’s OK to punish underaged boys for being raped. That’s a throwback to things like forcing women to marry their rapists.
I have an image of a woman raping the underaged son of an extremely wealthy person, getting pregnant and then giving birth and demanding child support. What then?
I followed the “Baby M” surrogate mother trial very closely, it happening in my back yard. Basically, Mary Beth Whitehead agreed to be artifically inseminated with the sperm of William Stern, give birth and give the child to Stern and his wife, allowing her to adopt the baby. After Whitehead gave birth, she decided to keep her daughter, put her husband’s name on the birth certificate, and said in effect to the Sterns “Go away, I had a baby.” When the Sterns got a court order demanding she turn the child over to them, she fled to Florida and spent two months living with friends and in motels, eluding the law. In two phone calls, she threatened to kill the child and to falsely accuse Stern of sexually molesting her 10 year daughter.
Anyway, the original contract was held up by the lower court, except for the part where Stern could force Whitehead to have an abortion The court ruled that only the pregnant woman could determine whether she would have an abortion.
Fetuses are aborted, not children.
Killing an innocent child for the crime of his mother solely to avoid child support is just?
What kind of society do we live in where taking care of your child is punishment? Yes, it can be a financial burden, but the intent is not to punish anyone. You and others keep missing the point I (and the courts) are making- child support is for the child. It’s not about fairness, justice, or any other lofty ideal. It’s about how to best ensure that a child is taken care of. All of this back and forth about how “unjust” it is for the victim is beside the point. Why should you punish the child because of what his parent did? Also keep in mind that this child support probably wouldn’t even go to the rapist mom since she would likely be in jail.
The anti-abortion crowd point out that the “child” should not be killed for what the “parent” did. Indeed, in 31 states rapists can claim paternal rights. Amusing gender equality, rapists should also have maternal rights. Image a 14 year old “father” having to take the baby to prison every week for visitation with the mother.