Yes, and when people are guilty of a crime, we put them in prison. We do not strap them down and muck about in their genitals with sharp shit, nor do we force them to carry unwanted babies to term. That shit is constitutionally prohibited. Do you really think this is worth overturning the Eighth Amendment for? Because in my opinion, that is kind of an important one. You know, for an Amendment.
If you think the laws should be changed, then why not just propose a law that gives any man whose convicted rapist gives birth to his child the option of waiving all child support obligations?
Don’t you think that might make a little more sense than making laws that suddenly allow for the government to perform and withhold surgery against convicts’ will? I mean, do you seriously not see how that might end up being kind of a bad idea?
I would gladly support such a law. Absent the law, the courts have consistently ruled that (outside of a medical setting), the sperm donor is the father and will be responsible for the child regardless of the circumstances.
I apologize for not recognizing that the cliche that “Biology is destiny” equates to "Only women can get pregnant.
I am not advocating forced breeding. I thought that the scenario under discussion was requiring an abortion when a woman raped a man even though the OP was the opposite.
Then keep working at it. Right now, male sexual assault victims whose assailants were female don’t get taken nearly as seriously as they should. With enough social activism work, however, things like that can turn around remarkably quickly.
And even if it takes a while, I promise you it will be a hundred billion times faster and easier than convincing the country that overturning the Eighth Amendment is a good idea.
This.
Not that I’m in favor of it, but given the current make up of the Supreme Court and the mood in a large number of states, I’m not convinced that overturning the 8th would be necessary and/or difficult.
Something tells me that law is not your field.
Nope. Don’t even play one on TV. Just a former political science major. But I’ll take this as a compliment anyway.
I suppose that no one in the legal field believes that a Supreme Court that recently ruled that it should be easier to suppress voting rights would believe that that same court might rule that certain medical procedures could be performed against a patient’s will.
Hey, free tip for you: people who express open contempt for lawyers and legislators don’t generally end up having very much influence on how legislature is written or enacted. But then, if your only goal is to flail around advocating dangerous repeals of people’s constitutionally-protected rights for what seems to be no discernable reason or purpose, then I think maybe it will be best for everyone if you keep on expressing that contempt. Go Nars! It’s your birthday!
I liked your original comment better. I’m getting too old to enjoy birthdays but I don’t mind “contemptin’ with yo’ (my) bad self!”
The vast majority of these cases are statutory rape, and I don’t think this decision should be up to a child.
I’m liberal enough think there should be fewer people put in prison, and for shorter terms, and that prisoners should be protected from victimization by guards and other prisoners. But I also think that elective surgery is the kind of privilege convicts should lose. The only situation in which I can see a prison hospital performing an abortion is where the female prisoner is the victim of rape in the prison.
HOWEVER – before her trial has ended, the alleged female rapist will surely have had time to get a abortion. If in jail because she can’t make bail, she is presumed innocent, so the government should offer her the full range of medical care.
As can be seen from my approach here, I do not think the law should be tailored to such a weird scenario.
In all other instances, I wouldn’t support such a radial punishment, but this is a special case. Essentially, women rapists who get pregnant have a way of punishing the men without equal retribution. A child is 18 years of financial commitment, a punishment that is imposed on only the most serious crimes in our society. Yes, some will see children as a blessing, and good for them, but many will not. For those people, there needs to be a way out
Lets talk about exceptions, I’m all for that. In fact, I’m more for an exception to release a man utterly from any parental obligations than I am for the forced abortion. However, I don’t have problems with my #2 choice, which is to stuff her so full of abortion pills that she miscarries. Prisoners can be force fed food and medicine in certain situations, so I personally believe that doing this would be completely and 100% legal.
And I don’t really think that the 8th Amendment needs to be changed. I don’t consider this to be cruel or unusual. The punishment, to me, obviously fits the crime. She raped and stole his DNA to create a baby he doesn’t want but will be bound to him for life. The state removes it. Its neither cruel nor unusual
It is cruel because it entails forcing a painful medical procedure on an unconsenting patient. It is unusual because forcing painful medical procedures on inmates is not and never has been a legal American sentencing option. It is, therefore, cruel and unusual, your considerations notwithstanding. Sorry!
Just to play the devil’s advocate here, I think the female rapist should be forced to abort the child should the male victim choose not keep the child, to deter child support fraud from occurring.
In fact, the more I dig, the more cases I find (around 15 so far). This post was going to turning out as a 10 page essay, so I’ve decided to restrain myself deleted all of it, and just provide the most basic details of my findings.
If a man intentionally impregnates a woman without her consent, for example by tampering with the condom, he will be charged with sexual assault and child support. If a woman impregnate herself with sperm from a man without his consent, she committed no crime (in the eye of the law) and she gets child support. Regardless whether sex was involved or not.
If a male minor impregnates a adult woman during the act of statutory rape, she might or might not be charged with sexual crime (or no crime at all), but he is obligated to pay child support. I did not find out if a male adult would have to pay child support for the female minor he had sex with, but I guess it goes uncontested that he will be charged with statutory rape (in most cases)
If he was raped (either by force or either he is incapacitated/asleep/drugged), he still has to pay child support (S.F. v. ex rel. T.M., 695 So.2d 1186). But if she was raped, had a child, and decided to let the rapist to raise the child, she did not have to pay child support (Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031).
Are these current practice on sex crime and child support (and lets not even begin
on child support fraud and custody battle) sexist, unfair and ridiculously unreasonable? Why shouldn’t the law force female rapist to abort their child to deter paternity fraud and F-on-M rape.?
Personally, I think, rapist or not, fraudster or not, woman should have the choice to not have a abortion. It’s her body, it’s her choice, even though he was not given a choice.
But (1) child support from rape victim should abolished to deter rape and fraud committed by women. And (2) her crimes should render her the less suitable custodial parent in the eye of the law (just as a male rapist should). Furthermore, (3) equal punishments should be employed for male and female rapists.
The justice should be just, and women are just as capable to be held accountable legally as men.
I’ll freely say I’m impressed at the quality of the first post you’ve ever posted on this site since it doesn’t seem to have any of the normal flaws of first posts of members but instead seems to have the type of arguments and argumentative style that one would expect for someone’s who’s ben a long time member, not a recent immigrat.
Congratulations!
Excellent post, thank you for that. And yes, I agree with the quoted part especially. The disparity in bringing sexual assault charges against female perpetrators is wrongheaded. (Although I think in many cases, statutory rape charges are wrongheaded, no matter what the genders, but that’s another thread.)
To my uneducated eye and keeping it to the topic of child support, it looks like two things are clear: Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031) doesn’t fit the pattern re: child support, and child support is not punishment.
That second one is the most important point. Child support isn’t punishment. It’s not a fine, it’s not a tax, it’s not a penalty. It’s court ordered because some people won’t pay it on their own, and we as a society have decided that if you procreate, you should be the one to support the offspring, at least to some degree. Not “if you want a child”, not even, “if you have sex,” just if you procreate.
Perhaps, given technology we have now that we didn’t have when we decided that (artificial insemination, DNA testing, safer abortions, etc.) as well as behavior we didn’t admit happened when we decided that (female infidelity in marriage, female on male rape, condom tampering, etc.), it’s time to revisit that decision on a larger, law-making scale. I’ve got some doubts that it will happen anytime soon, though. Not because it’s not important that men get raped sometimes, but because you need a fairly large group making noise to get laws changed in a democracy.
Please cite male rape victims who have pressed charges and yet have to pay child support.
People here act as though women don’t pay child support. These women raise the children…isn’t that support?
And I really, really hope those poor guys pressed charges immediately after they were ravaged. Crying “rape” when the woman is visibly pregnant & threatening their financial welfare is too fucking late…