Male Rape Victim forced to pay Child Support to Rapist.

[Deleted]

So a man that rapes a woman and she gets pregnant should be entitled to joint custody? And there is a reason the sexy offenders register exists and why we don't let them work with children.

Yeah, a guy that "watches underage drawn pictures" was in court here in Sweden for possession of child porn. Drawn pictures, and he's labelled a pedophile and as in possession of child porn. He was translating manga series.

[Deleted]

Unless she's abusing it she shouldn't lose custody. That's all it comes down to. You can't take the custody away from someone unless you can show they're hurting the kid.

The custody should go to the parent who is likely to be better for a child. Between a rapist and a non-rapist, the rapist. Between a criminal and somebody without a record, the person without a record.

Why? Because there is no reason to put a child at more risk than they need to be.

Yes, they should be able to if they're not going to hurt a kid.

There's no way to tell ahead of time whether they will or won't, thus they should not as a precaution to protect the children.

[Deleted]

I made no mention of sexual abuse in child abuse.

You quoting me on the prior page and not correcting my statement of it being sexual actually indicates otherwise.

While you made no effort to differentiate the sub-sections of child abuse you engaged me when i raised a faction of it, that namely being sexual assault of a child.

Queue the posts up unto this page the discussion of the abuse was clearly regarding the sexual aspects.

[Granyala]

Yeah, AZ's sex-ed is retarded. Thankfully my parents aren't retarded so when they gave me the talk, they were sure to include...

Yes, meme is relevant because they really did tell me everything I should know. Not that I've ever had sex anyway considering my social ineptitude is the Great Wall of Cockblocking.

Haha.. I know the feeling (on both points).
While Sex-ed is existent here in Germany, they told me nothing I hadn't learned from my mother already. Guess it helps when she is a nurse and has medical expertise.

@Topic: It's admirable that the boy wants to pay up. However the demand to pay for the last 6 years is absurd.
They should ask him to pay for the time he had a reliable income a.k.a. the last 2 years tops.

[Deleted]

Queue the posts up unto this page the discussion of the abuse was clearly regarding the sexual aspects.

I can't see that anywhere.

[Granyala]

Yeah, a guy that "watches underage drawn pictures" was in court here in Sweden for possession of child porn. Drawn pictures, and he's labelled a pedophile and as in possession of child porn. He was translating manga series.

Loli Hentai is dangerous in Europe, yep.

[Deleted]

The custody should go to the parent who is likely to be better for a child. Between a rapist and a non-rapist, the rapist. Between a criminal and somebody without a record, the person without a record.

Why? Because there is no reason to put a child at more risk than they need to be.

Rich parent who has a drug offense for possession of pot vs a parent who is on unemployment benefits but has no criminal record. Yep, the criminal one would the worse, certainly.

[Deleted]

Rich parent who has a drug offense for possession of pot vs a parent who is on unemployment benefits but has no criminal record. Yep, the criminal one would the worse.

Comparing a pot smoker to a child rapist, smrt.

[AeneasBK]

Queue the posts up unto this page the discussion of the abuse was clearly regarding the sexual aspects.

Does it matter though? Should parents who beat their children black and blue be allowed to keep their next child because "they didn't abuse them sexually"?

Rhetorical question, of course

[Deleted]

Comparing a pot smoker to a child rapist, smrt.

Criminal vs non-criminal was specified in the post.

[Deleted]

Rich parent who has a drug offense for possession of pot vs a parent who is on unemployment benefits but has no criminal record. Yep, the criminal one would the worse.

Considering the parent without the child would have to pay the parent with the child the 'rich' part means little.

[Deleted]

Criminal vs non-criminal was specified in the post.

Yeah sure, nobody pointed out to you specific examples of child abuse scenarios.

Nope.

[Deleted]

Considering the parent without the child would have to pay the parent with the child the 'rich' part means little.

Maybe in countries where you can sue for retarded sums of child support.

[Deleted]

Does it matter though? Should parents who beat their children black and blue be allowed to keep their next child because "they didn't abuse them sexually"?

Rhetorical question, of course

Heh.

My mother was taken into care for her mother choosing to leave her at home for upwards of six hours at a time drinking, so logic would dictate...

[Deleted]

Yeah sure, nobody pointed out to you specific examples of child abuse scenarios.

Nope.

Actually there Mooneye is correct. I mentioned general criminal vs non-criminal.

[Deleted]

Actually there Mooneye is correct. I mentioned general criminal vs non-criminal.

Since then plenty of examples have been offered. Even in your own post you use the example of a rapist.

[AeneasBK]

There is no sarcasm at all. Both situations are different even with your wording and I'm baffled if you can't grasp why.
something something pregnancy something something.

You're welcome to believe that because the women carries the child to birth, she is entitled to keep the child.

You're welcome to believe that because the rapist carries the child to birth, the rapist is entitled to keep the child.

Semantics.

Pretty sure if a guy has been raped and become a father by it, and wants to be the father; he should be entitled to have more access to his child than the rapist who raped him. Thats just my thinking though. By all means believe that possession of a womb means you can be absolved of some of the consequences of being a rapist though.

[Deleted]

Since then plenty of examples have been offered. Even in your own post you use the example of a rapist.

Yes but Mooneye was focusing specific on the criminal vs non-criminal example in that instance.

Maybe in countries where you can sue for retarded sums of child support.

A fraction of the parent's money should always go to the child even if they don't get visitation rights. The richer the parent without custody, the more money going towards the child.

[Deleted]

Yeah sure, nobody pointed out to you specific examples of child abuse scenarios.

Nope.

Even if they have abused a child in the past it shouldn't mean they get the custody taken away of their current child unless they abuse it.

- - - Updated - - -

A fraction of the parent's money should always go to the child even if they don't get visitation rights. The richer the parent without custody, the more money going towards the child.

That's most certainly not the case in Sweden.

In Sweden a parent not living with their child should pay "underhållsbidrag", since parents are obliged to support for their children. The amount should be agreed on by the parents, with consideration taken for the economic need of the child and the economic situation of both parents.

So, they don't actually need to pay as retarded sums as in other countries.

[Deleted]

Even if they have abused a child in the past it shouldn't mean they get the custody taken away of their current child unless they abuse it.

You clearly have no notion of how child protective services operate.

I mean christ you're talking as if the children exist in isolation to each other and their environment.