Male Rape Victim forced to pay Child Support to Rapist.

[Deleted]

Because she has the custody of the child when she gives birth to it, she doesn't have to sue for custody.

The argument is that she shouldn't have to sue for custody, she simply shouldn't have the child.

[Deleted]

Hurt is synonymous with violence.

It's also synonymous with psychological hurt.

In my opinion, male or female, rapists shouldn't be allowed to have children.

It just seems you think female rapists should be allowed them and not male rapists.

Which seems a rather huge fallacy.

They're both rapists, they both raped, they both broke the law, one has a penis the other ovaries; That seemingly changes everything for you, why?

If the man can give birth to a child, yeah, he should be able to keep it as well but he can't due to biology.

- - - Updated - - -

The argument is that she shouldn't have to sue for custody, she simply shouldn't have the child.

On what basis? That she committed a crime? Unless she's abusign it, there's no reason why it should be taken away.

[Wildtree]

It's as "normal" as it is in the reversed situation. Would you say it's normal (or "expected") if a 14 year old girl would want to have sex with a 20 year old?

yes, just not by that extent.. Girls are typically more reluctant, knowing how they could end up with a pregnancy.
Teenage girls act for the most part more mature and responsible than teenage boys.. In the age range from 12 - 17 this is very obvious. Lies in the fact how females mature sooner by approximately 2 yrs.

[AeneasBK]

whatever, keep living in fantasy land. I know for a fact I could manipulate pretty much any teen into doing anything, that they WOULD NOT do were they 25.

Those 2 bolded bits make this whole post come across as mightily creepy considering the context of this discussion

[Deleted]

It's also synonymous with psychological hurt.


If the man can give birth to a child, yeah, he should be able to keep it as well but he can't due to biology.

It's also synonymous with psychological hurt.

In the context of which you stated it, i took it to mean physical harm, re-reading it i reach the same conclusion.

And regardless, the omission of any harm for the male victim is still curious.

If the man can give birth to a child, yeah, he should be able to keep it as well but he can't due to biology.

I see, this is where i differ substantially with you.

While you condone rapists having children, i don't.

[Yunru]

The real question:
Did they do DNA test?

[Deleted]

If the man can give birth to a child, yeah, he should be able to keep it as well but he can't due to biology.

No, that is not how it should work. It should work on the basis of which parent is better for the child. Between a rapist and a non-rapist? The non-rapist is almost always going to be the better choice.

On what basis? That she committed a crime? Unless she's abusign it, there's no reason why it should be taken away.

On the basis that the child is potentially at risk perhaps? A rapist, or somebody having sex with minors is certainly not the best person to raise a child.

[Mihalik]

I'm amused about how this managed to turn into "Was it really rape?" - "It's not a real-real rape, it's JUST statutory rape".

So the next time a 20 year old dude impregnates a 14 year old girl with her "consent" I totally hope you'll be asking the same questions, and pointing out the same semantic differences.

(Actually I don't hope anything of the sorts because that's just retarded.)

[Deleted]

Okay, so rapists can keep babies. That's fine, as long as you also admit that murderers, terrorists and child abusers should also be allowed to keep their children.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with murderers and terrorists being allowed to keep their children unless they abuse them. Active child abuse is hurting the child, simply having committed murder or an act of terrorism is not hurting the child. If they've abused a child in the past but don't do it to a current child I see no problem with it either.

[Deleted]

I'm amused about how this managed to turn into "Was it really rape?" - "It's not a real-real rape, it's JUST statutory rape".

So the next time a 20 year old dude impregnates a 14 year old girl with her "consent" I totally hope you'll be asking the same questions, and pointing out the same semantic differences.

(Actually I don't hope anything of the sorts because that's just retarded.)

Well, we're on the topic of only female rapists being allowed their victims child.

Male rapists can leave, because biology.

[prwraith]

Oh indeed after this every time I read a post here about a woman getting raped I'll just say, are you really sure it wasn't rape because there's different degrees dontcha'know.

[Deleted]

yes, just not by that extent.. Girls are typically more reluctant, knowing how they could end up with a pregnancy.
Teenage girls act for the most part more mature and responsible than teenage boys.. In the age range from 12 - 17 this is very obvious. Lies in the fact how females mature sooner by approximately 2 yrs.

Sounds totally legit.

Edit: In case it's not 100% clear, that statement is 100% horse shit.

[Deleted]

It's also synonymous with psychological hurt.


If the man can give birth to a child, yeah, he should be able to keep it as well but he can't due to biology.

- - - Updated - - -



On what basis? That she committed a crime? Unless she's abusign it, there's no reason why it should be taken away.

Ding Ding Ding, we have Bingo for "biology"
you do know How stupid that argument is?

And really your final sentence:

On what basis? That He committed a crime? Unless He's abusing it, there's no reason why it should be denied him.

but inversion is to hard to handle for your brain?

[Deleted]

I don't see anything inherently wrong with murderers and terrorists being allowed to keep their children unless they abuse them. Active child abuse is hurting the child, simply having committed murder or an act of terrorism is not hurting the child. If they've abused a child in the past but don't do it to a current child I see no problem with it either.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with murderers and terrorists being allowed to keep their children unless they abuse them

They've demonstrated to such a degree they care so little for the law, many jurisdictions already prevent SERIOUS OR SEXUAL criminals from working, interacting, living with or having children.

Rapists generally jump to 1st place on that line.

Active child abuse is hurting the child, simply having committed murder or an act of terrorism is not hurting the child.

You're correct, but they're vastly different crimes than those of a sexual nature; Regardless, the severity of them are so powerful the risk factor would motivate lifelong CPS monitoring and frequent interventions (See drug dealers).

If they've abused a child in the past but don't do it to a current child I see no problem with it either.

You're condoning child abusers and allowing them to have children?

That's fucked up.

Like seriously fucked up.

[Deleted]

And really your final sentence:

but inversion is to hard to handle for your brain?

Not the same situation, at all. A woman having her rapist get the custody of her child is not the same as a woman getting to keep a child she gave birth to.

[Mihalik]

Woman is raped by a man, man sues for custody but is unlikely to get it because he hurt the woman.
Woman rapes a guy, gives birth to child and has custody of the child.

They're pretty different. I don't see why you should take the child from the woman unless she abuses it.

Added to my Mooneye signature collection. So now she is defending child abusers, as long as they are female. Niiiiiiiiiiiice.

[Deleted]

You're condoning child abusers and allowing them to have children?

That's fucked up.

Like seriously fucked up.

So, now suddenly people can't be rehabilitated? In the past you've given me shit for wanting to punish people for their deeds but now when I'm in favor of giving people a second chance if they've bettered themselves, you call it fucked up. Hypocrisy much?

[Deleted]

It's the world we currently live in sadly, best of luck to the kid.

I already got enough shit to worry about at 22...leave alone needing to raise a kid with a woman who raped me 6 years ago...

[AeneasBK]

Not the same situation, at all. A woman having her rapist get the custody of her child is not the same as a woman getting to keep a child she gave birth to.

Semantics.

"A woman having her rapist get custody of the child is not the same as a man having his rapist get custody of the child."

[Mihalik]

Not the same situation, at all. A woman having her rapist get the custody of her child is not the same as a woman getting to keep a child she gave birth to.

Which she got by raping a 14 year old child. Yes...a paragon of responsible motherhood.