In this scenario is this rape?

In My Humble Opinion
81

JC - I won’t say there’s no moral argument being made at all, just that it seemed to be absent from that one particular post.

I don’t see that. If a woman says to a man, “I’d like to have your baby, no strings attached,” and honors that deal, it’s not like the child, on arriving at the age of reason, can petition the court for a guardian ad litem to seek support from the father. He’s out of the picture, because that’s what he and the mother agreed. If the child’s right was controlling, such agreements would be inherently invalid.

Everything about a child’s upbringing is beyond its control. It’s like asking whether it’s moral for some children to grow up in poverty when there are rich people in our country with more money than they’ll be able to spend in a hundred lifetimes.

And assuming this woman is perfectly capable of raising this child on her own, well, lots of people have been raised by one parent. It’s less than ideal, perhaps, but it’s generally sufficient.

82

There are all sorts of realities presented by emerging technologies that weren’t even imagined at the time the most relevant law was written.

Children are born stateless due to the law not keeping up with assisted reproductive technologies. We could say that is just too bad and leave it up to the courts to deal with on a case by case basis. It may takes years and families are left in a sort of legal limbo until everything is resolved.

Or we could change the law to provide better guidance.

Same argument for the OP.

Stolen sperm cases really do end up in court. And it takes a long time to sort things out.

Another case

Another case

These cases drag out. Legal expenses mount, possibly to the detriment of a wronged individual. The guy generally ends up paying court ordered child support and then having to sue.

Or we could rewrite the law. The guy is already in court for child support. Just let the judge take into account whether the paternity was the result of a fraudulent act on the part of the woman and thus hold the male not liable.

83

Because it’s horribly unfair and isn’t a “remedy”; it outright subsidizes predatory behavior. It’s as if the victim of a mugging was required to pay his or her mugger for 18 years. And no, child support isn’t about the child; the courts don’t care if the money goes to support the child, and have little concern over how the child is treated so long as the mother doesn’t outright kill him or her.

If this was really about making sure that a child is supported there’s a simple and obvious solution to the problem: have the government help pay to upkeep the kid. But that won’t happen because it isn’t about the child; it’s about punishment. As far as I’ve ever been able to tell almost no one genuinely cares what happens to the kid, they care that the “responsible” man takes a hit.

84

Because right now, a rapist can take their victim to court, and force the victim to pay the rapist. Which is repulsive.

And no, I don’t think the distinction between child support payments going to the child, versus going to the custodial parent, is a significant one.

85

Except the only reason Bruce is on the hook for child support is because Clarice is the custodial parent of the child. Why shouldn’t Bruce get custody of the child, and Clarice should have to pay child support? Clarice is obviously a kook, so it seems pretty likely that the best interest of the child is to live with Bruce.

Of course if Bruce doesn’t want to raise this child then he can leave the child with the kooky sperm-stealing mother and pay to support his child.

And to address something earlier, a woman cannot legally sign away her child’s right to child support. Yes, this means if you have sex with a woman who wants a child and she tells you that you can walk away free and clear, her statements are not legally enforceable. Child support belongs to a child, not the child’s custodial parent.

A custodial parent can certainly say, “I dunno who the father is.” If she doesn’t pursue a child support order, then yes you will not have to pay child support. But if she goes on welfare, lots of states will attempt to track down the father of the child and garnish his wages to defray the costs of welfare for his child. This isn’t always possible if the identity of the father really is only known to the mother, but often such things are not secret.

So if you get a woman pregnant you can be on the hook for child support, and back child support, even if she says you aren’t. She doesn’t have the right to make that choice for her child. But children can sue for back child support even after they turn 18. It happens, and it doesn’t matter what conversations the mother and father had back when the child was conceived.

Of course, another man might be assumed to be the legal father, and if he puts his name on the birth certificate as the father and assumes a paternal role for a certain amount of time with no paternity disputes, then he becomes the legal father regardless of who the genetic father is.

But what this means is that society has an interest in assigning paternity to children. This means that you can’t, 10 years later, claim that your child is really the child of your wife’s boyfriend, and you’re not responsible for the child. Yes you are, just as if you had adopted a child that was not genetically related to you. Once you become the legal parent of the child you can’t unilaterally disclaim responsibility for it.

Nobody asked me for a DNA sample when my kids were born to prove that I was the genetic father. I am their legal father regardless of their genetic parentage, and even if someone could prove that I am not their genetic father I would still be their legal father.