Female-on-male rape and pregnancy

I think it’s better to let a 100 scumbag fathers off than punish a single man for being raped (statutory or not) or having his sperm stolen.

Does a female rape victim need the father’s consent to put the baby up for adoption? :confused: If not then why can’t a male rape victim put the baby up for adoption over the mother’s objections? Do they actually need to find parents for the baby or just sign it over to social services?

If the father of a child that is being placed for adoption can be identified and located, it certainly makes for a more legally solid adoption to get his consent or for the courts to sever his parental rights. The circumstances of conception are fairly immaterial to this except that the court may be a little more tempted to sever rights.

There are so many categories at play here:

the father as criminal

the mother as crime victim

but, the baby is not generally regarded as the victim of its own conception, so, it is not considered a victim of the rapist. Rather, it is considered the child of its parents.

Child support is not regarded (by the courts) as punitive. It is a legal representation of the duty of people to support and care for their offspring to adulthood. Care is hard to quantify and may not, in all cases, be desirable, but it is hard to argue with the value of support. Child support may be talked about as an educational consequence and perhaps disincentive to one’s actions, but that’s not necessarily the way to look at it from a legal perspective – here’s a kid; it’s yours; it’s hungry; feed it. Not “because you didn’t take appropriate precautions or make the right moral decisions”, but because it’s a kid; it’s hungry; it’s yours. Feed it.

Then, there’s the question of fitness to parent. This does not necessarily follow, precisely, the lines of a history of criminality or non-criminality. Or of violence or non-violence.

Examples of non-violent rapes have been cited above. And then there’s the II-messed-up, one-more-chance, situations that the courts and family services are dealing with all the time, since there is often a systemized preference to fashion a family out of whatever remotely family-like affiliations a child may have. It may very well be not just a legal fiction, but more true than that for a child to have as his/her most fit caregiver a convicted rapist. Bummer, but true. Maybe not even always a bummer, if we think people can learn and change, or if we think that sometimes people are wrongly convicted or the laws are too harsh in some subsets of circumstances.

Yesnokindasorta, check your local laws. In my state, “a good faith attempt” (or something like that, IANAL) must be made to contact and obtain the consent of both biological parents before an adoption can be made. What this usually means is that you must take out a newspaper ad for some number of weeks advertising that the child is being placed for adoption, and anyone with a legal interest should call some number (usually the lawyer of whoever has custody of the kid). If you have any old phone numbers or addresses of close family members, the judge might order that the lawyers attempt contact that way. I wouldn’t be surprised if a simple Google search or search of state drivers’ licenses was routine, as well, 'though I don’t know about that for sure.

If no one responds to contest the adoption, the judge will sever the parental rights and proceed with the adoption. If later on the parent shows up and can convince the judge that there was a good reason s/he didn’t respond or that the other parent knowingly and willingly prevented him/her from finding out about the adoption, then the judge might decide to reverse the adoption and restore the parental rights of the parent, leading quite frequently to messiness all 'round.

There are other reasons why a person might have their parental rights severed without consent, usually because of their behavior. A parent who is absent with no attempt to contact their child or the custodial parent for X number of weeks/months may be declared by a judge to have abandoned the child, and rights may be severed as a result. But usually this is only done if there is already another person (step-parent, perhaps) who wants to adopt. The state is not interested in creating 1 parent families; 2 parents financially supporting a child are less likely to need state funds.

Gender and the circumstances of the conception is irrelevant.

How does this relate to ‘Safe Haven’ laws that allow the dropoff of newborns, no questions asked, at hospitals and fire houses and such?

Those babies are still advertised, in case the other parent wants them back, from what I understand. In such a case, the parents of the baby still legally owes child support to the state until the child is placed for adoption, although practically speaking, they rarely even try to collect. The state has decided to waive their right to child support in the interest of keeping the babies safe and alive. Again, this probably varies by state.

Egad, I know I am on the minority side here…but here is my opinion:

The child’s existance is what is important here. How the child got conceived is irrelevant. If the child is yours biologically, unless you can get someone else to take over that right (like adoption)…then both parents must support the child…by force of law if necessary.

Is it unfair?

YES! The father could be put in the situation like in rape in the OP. However, the child exists. The father IS who it is and the child needs the support.

If you don’t follow this…then who will pay? The only other people is the taxpayer…and of all the parties involved that would be the MOST UNFAIR party to penalize.

Should the state over-ride the mothers insistance on raising the child? I don’t know…maybe. However, not all babies are adopted and if the baby is not (or until it is) then they are both on the hook.

It’s sad…but some things have to be while not being really fair…but the least unfair option should be followed.

I think it would probably be more like 100,000 to 1. But of course you are entitled to your opinion.

Are the custodial parents and the children of the scumbags also entitled to an opinion? Those are actual people **alphaboi867 **wants to take money away from. Not their fault their fathers are scumbags.

First, I wasn’t speaking about statutory rape, especially when the “victim” is close in age to the “perpetrator” and gave consent. Age of consent laws have a purpose, but I think the situation you’ve chosen to argue has little to do with the dilemmas originally posed by the OP.

Let me be clear: unless I specifically name statutory rape, I am talking about coercive or violent rape, wherein one person violates the other’s right to the sanctity of their body.

I stand by what I said. If a person is so fundamentally flawed as to think they are justified in forcing sex on another person, they are not fit to be responsible for the care and upbringing of a child. At the very least, they will communicate their values regarding rape to their child, increasing the chance that the child will become a predator or a victim. If the rapist is beyond depraved, they may consider their own child as a sexual outlet and take advantage of the child’s proximity and dependence.

Rehabilitation wasn’t mentioned in the OP, but by definition, it means that the rapist has come to understand that their actions were wrong and regret them. If a rapist is truly rehabilitated, has served their sentence, and repaid their debt to society, then they are welcome to petition for custody and prove to the courts that they are deserving of and responsible for the custody of their child.

However, the rights, the health, and the comfort of the child and the victim come first. If this hurts the rapist’s feelings, that’s just too bad. They can get counseling to deal with it.

I have no sympathy for the rapist - male or female. A rapist is not trustworthy. Period. End of story. Rape by definition is an intimate violation, and it can only happen through an act of willful penetration against another person’s will. I don’t care what redeeming traits a rapist might have - if they donate to charity, help little old ladies across the street, or teach the illiterate to read. They are still rapists, they still committed a violent act against another human being, and when it comes to gauging, prioritizing, and protecting civil rights, they should be at the end of the line with the murderers, molesters, and muggers.