(In the US at least) a female who is a victim of rape (forcible or statutory) and get’s pregnant has 3 options; abortion, adoption, and raising the child. She does not need to consult the man who raped her, but if she chooses number 3 he’s obligated to pay child support. I see no problem with her rapist not having a say. His opinion does not matter and it’s absurd to think it should. Does anybody disagree?
A male who is a victim of rape (forcible or statutory) and get’s his rapist pregnant does not have any options. His rapist can choose; abortion, adoption, or raising the child. She does not need to consult her victim, but if she chooses number 3 he’s obligated to pay child support. I think this is absurd. Why should he have any obligation to the child? How is that fair? However allowing him to force his rapist to abort is both impractical and monstrous. What is a fair solution? Why should she even be allowed to raise the child? Would a male rapist be allowed to raise the resulting child and force his victim to pay child support?
Can we have a cite to a single case of a man that was raped by a woman and that woman got pregnant, had the baby and the raped man had to pay child support?
I don’t see how it could be considered rape. I think calling it rape trivializes real rape. I don’t see how forcible intercourse would even be physically possible.
I say if he busted a nut, it wasn’t rape. Rape victims don’t come.
Dio, I agree with your theses 95% of the time, but , I think you’re wrong there, and I think it’s a dangerous sort of wrong. It’s possible for a man to ejaculate and still not consent, just as a woman can have an orgasm to which she did not consent. Nerve endings do not always follow the directives of the conscious mind. I’ll see if I can find some online cites shortly.
Strangulation will stimulate an erection, and is the common method of forcing an erection in such cases as I recall.
As for the OP, no the male victim shouldn’t pay, but I’d expect he’d be forced to. Even men who aren’t the father have been forced to pay; the real purpose of child support in this country is to take money from men and give it to women. Regardless of the man being at all responsible or related to the child, and regardless of if the women spends a dime on the kid.
This issue looks pretty clear to me. If a person doesn’t give consent to sex, then he/she should not be held responsible for the consequences of the sex. And if a person is legally presumed to be unable to consent to sex simply on the grounds of being younger than a certain statutory age, then the absence of responsibility should apply in that case too.
However, I don’t think that the statutory-rape story that Amp and brazil84 both linked to (they’re different links, but the same story) is necessarily inconsistent with this view. The woman in the case was charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor only one month before the child-support award was made; she had not yet been tried or convicted.
I don’t see anything wrong with a judge handing down a provisional decision on child support and visitation rights before it’s legally determined whether rape was committed. The criminal-law process can take a while, and in the meantime, the kid’s gotta be fed and clothed.
If the woman is convicted of statutory rape, then I think the child-support award should be overturned, and the rapist should have to make restitution of any payments she received. (But in that case the issue will probably be moot, as the alleged rape victim’s parents are suing for custody of their grandchild, and if the mother’s serving time for rape then I expect they’ll get it.)