Why, because that’s completely different, ya see. The woman is always the victim and the man is always the victimizer and think of the children!
Dunno about other felonies but rapists have some serious issues. How screwed up would someone have to be to think such a brutal crime is okay?
They have no business being involved in the development of kids.
Are you against child support in general, then? All of the arguments you used against me apply to regular old vanilla child support, too. The “what if he kills himself or her or sets manhattan on fire or nukes the earth from orbit because (snip) /rolleyes” thing was my favorite part.
I just have to agree with other people who pointed this out, but that idea is both dead wrong and dangerously ignorant. Female rape victims sometimes have an orgasm and then feel guilty about the psychological conflict that causes. Rapes of males by males sometimes have the victim orgasming. A rape of a man by a woman under threat of violence could easily end with the man coming.
Now, I don’t feel like the statutory rape case cited above as a rape for this debate and others like it should count as rape, as consent was actually given, so there’s no real victim. If government wants to have laws making it a crime, that’s fine, but it’s not rape, regardless of what they call it.
If a 19 year old female having sex with a 15 year old male is supposedly rape because the 15 year old couldn’t legally give consent, that’d be the same as two 13 year olds having sex being mutual rape of each other. In a case like that, would the people complaining that this poor 15 year old had to pay for a child he fathered through consensual sex say that they 13 year old boy didn’t have to pay for the child he fathered?
People just need to use some common sense.
I firmly believe that the mother is guilty of fraud, and should be treated accordingly.
I’m against our present unfair system, not the concept in general. Men should have to pay for the children they are responsible for Not some other man’s child foisted on him deceptively; and certainly not one forced on him.
Only if you consider men’s consent or responsibility irrelevant.
Yeah, right. Let’s pretend that this sort of blatant injustice won’t have any effect whatsoever. It’s not like anyone in such a situation would, oh, take justice into their own hands, eh ?
Good grief.
Look, if we’re going to let people hide behind the threat of suicide, then it will be virtually impossible to enforce serious legal penalties for any laws. “Whaddaya mean, I have to go to jail for embezzlement? I would sooner kill myself! Do you want that on your conscience?”
But Mosier’s whole justification for the idea was that kids should be supported by two parents, even if we have to reduce a male rape victim to serfdom; if he’s dead, that undercuts his argument. You are talking about punishment in retribution for a crime; he is talking about exploiting the man, who has committed no crime whatsoever. Not the same thing at all. To use your embezzlement example, this is more like someone embezzling your pension fund, and the law stepping in and saying you have to pay him a hefty chunk of your paycheck for the next 20 years.
And a man in this situation will be FAR more likely to do something like suicide or murder than an embezzler. It’s practically designed to provoke murder, and make the murderer feel justified about it. And arguably, he would be; this is more like a slave killing his owner than anything else; the killing of someone engaged in the legally sanctioned exploitation of yourself.
That’s a good question, and I have mixed feelings, so let me see if I can reason out a decent answer . . .
Removing an infant from parental custody is a great deal less traumatic than it is for an older child. So, I would have to consider balancing it from a perspective of “least harm done”. I would look at a scale of parental/child relationship health with consequences of random checks, required education, required counseling, loss of primary custody with some visitation retained, and full loss of custody with no visitation whatsoever, depending on how healthy the child was, how well the parent met their obligations, and whether or not the parent was a likely re-offender.
Other people with violent felony convictions? Hmmm. A lot depends on the crime and the context. Bank robbery is considered violent, but I’d rather the Gentleman Robber who gave a note and mimed a gun have custody over a child than a woman who broke a bottle over someone’s head in a bar fight.
This, however, is just a pipe dream. Our Child Protective Services are so underfunded, so understaffed, and so undersupported, it is a national tragedy. Their ability to carry out those extra responsibilities is practically non-existent.
I just want to reemphasize this point. Orgasm is first and foremost a response to physical stimulation, and can happen even in instances of rape. I worked on a crisis hotline for a couple years, which included training on how to handle calls from rape victims. This is one of the first things they taught us. In particular, I was told that victims of male-on-male rape may have concerns about their sexuality because they had an erection or even orgasm during the attack. Diogenes’s comments above are utterly wrong and only reinforce this false idea that a rape victim’s physical reaction during the rape is somehow evidence that they enjoyed it.
As far as how a woman can rape a man, is it really that hard to imagine? If someone uses physical violence or the threat of physical violence to force you to have sex with them, it’s rape. For instance, if someone says “Have sex with me or I’ll beat you,” that’s undeniably rape. Not all abuse victims are women.
You’re dodging the issue. I was specifically addressing your objection that the father in question could threaten suicide, and thus, should not be forced to pay child support. You know that. Don’t pretend that we were discussing another matter altogether.
And how was I doing that ? Again, how does driving him to his death - and it’s not like he has much reason to live- accomplish whatever you are trying to accomplish ? Unless your goal is to kill male rape victims.
Here is my biggest problem with the current child support system:
They use the income shares model to determine how much a couple who was still together would spend on the child, due to some national figure, and then divide the responsibility. Let’s say that from the incomes, the court decides that the man owes $500/mo and the woman owes $1500/mo. She has a much better job than him.
Now, we all know that it doesn’t take $2k/month to raise a child, but as a family court judge will tell you, this isn’t just to provide food and shelter. This is so the child will have a comparable life to what he would have with an intact family.
Then find out two months from now that the kid lives in a pig sty and is fed the bare minimum food to keep child services at bay. You then demand to know where the woman’s $1500, let alone your $500 is going.
The answer: it doesn’t matter. The man’s portion is demanded, with no oversight and no expectation that it will be used for the child. If he doesn’t pay, he is a “deadbeat Dad” and he goes to jail. The only remaining debtors prison in the free world.
The woman can never pay her share and will never been held accountable…
So you’re saying that we should let people off the hook if they threaten to commit suicide. You can’t be serious.
Should a driver be forced to pay for damages to the Lexus that he ran into? Well, if he threatens suicide, I guess we should let him off the hook. After all, if he dies, then nothing is accomplished, right?
“But the rape victim isn’t a criminal!” you might object. That’s irrelevant, though. The point is that if you want to argue against making the father pay child support, you need a better reason that saying “He might commit suicide!” We cannot afford to ignore the law simply because some Joe Schmoe threatens to kill himself. To do so would be to completely emasculate the law, rendering it useless.
A law that makes the victim pay their rapist for 18 years is not just a law.
I didn’t say anything about threatening; I said that he might DO it. And you ignored the question; what does driving a rape victim to his death accomplish ?
That’s not “irrelevant”; that’s the core of the matter, and it negates the examples of crimes you keep trying to compare this too. This is more like a rich man deliberately driving over a poor man, and the poor man being forced by the law to pay for 20 years for getting blood all over the rich man’s car.
The law, in this case, is evil. It should be erased, not just rendered useless. And letting such laws stand weakens the whole of the law by destroying it’s moral authority.
And if that had been what I was arguing against, your objection would be relevant. It was not, though. As I’ve repeatedly emphasized, I was arguing against the specific objection that the father should not be forced to pay child support lest he commit suicide.
In fact, here were my exact words:
“The point is that if you want to argue against making the father pay child support, you need a better reason that saying ‘He might commit suicide!’ We cannot afford to ignore the law simply because some Joe Schmoe threatens to kill himself. To do so would be to completely emasculate the law, rendering it useless.”
Now, if people want to live in a society where the law is held hostage whenever someone threatens to commit suicide, more power to them. Personally, I don’t.
Even worse, then. You’ll treat him as though he would off himself, even when he gives no indication of doing so.
Yeah, that’s not the sort of law enforcement I want. It’s no form of law enforcement at all.
Nothing. Thankfully, rational people do not consider the payment of child support to be logically equivalent to “driving a rape victim to his death.”
As I’ve repeatedly said, I am not arguing that rape victims SHOULD be forced to pay child support. Rather, I am arguing against your specific objection that “Oh, but this guy might decide to kill himself!” – even when he gives no indication of doing so. That’s a daft argument, and I think you know it.
Hello ? Cause and effect ? Someone gets raped and is forced into serfdom to his rapist ? You think it’s so implausible that he’d do something violent to himself or others ?
It’s exploitation written into the law, and justification to disobey the law, violently if necessary.
Garbage. You are showing a complete unwillingness to treat men as anything other than mindless dispensers of cash, who aren’t even human enough to resent being raped and forced to pay for the privilege.
Well, if the man somehow ended up with custody of the child, she would have to pay child support.