If A Woman Rapes You Should You Still Have To Pay Child Support?

[Defiant47]

Except those arent comparable. At all. They are entirely two different things.

Walking down the street is comparable with engaging in sex. Both are voluntary. Both carry certain risk.

I also humbly submit that the odds of a condom breaking during sex are probably quite a bit higher than a pedestrian getting hit by a car on the sidewalk.

You need a better analogy. Badly.

Again, there is far more risk involved in having sex than there is walking down the street. I mean, that is so common sense, I cant even believe its being brought up.

Your objections to my analogy misses the point. If a person engages in something that gains them happiness, but comes at a small chance of negative consequences, they are not to be blamed if those come about.

Of course they are at 'fault' seeing as how they are engaging in an act that has a high chance of resulting in pregnancy. Far in excess of ones chance of being hit by a car while walking down the sidewalk, not to mention the fact that the exact biological imperative of having sex is procreation......

High chance? If you do it smart, there's a very low chance. Proper condom usage yields a 99.6% success rate over a year for the average relationship. Add in a birth control pill, and there's basically no chance. I guess it becomes important to make a distinction between what chance we're talking about. That of two smart partners taking the necessary precautions, or a bunch of uneducated teenagers who think the pull-out method works?

It also depends on our views of sex... I view it as necessary and normal as eating or walking down the street. Sure, I don't need to walk down the street as often as I do, to ensure my continued survival; just like sex. If a person were to view sex as completely unnecessary, then I could see how taking on a miniscule risk, however small, might render blame.

Your point fails because people expect and know that sex will result in pregnancy, even protected sex. Its why we have a sex ed class in schools. Do schools offer a sidewalk walking class in order to avoid being hit by a car? No?

Yes, we do, but not exactly in the manner you put it. Children are taught the dangers of walking down the street and looking both ways at an early age, at school and at home. We also have basic health and safety seminars at our workplaces on other things, however minor.

Things can happen. But if those things have a miniscule chance of happening, then no-one's to blame (if they took appropriate precautions).

 

[warpus]

This can occur in several circumstances. One being if the guy adopted the womans children he then becomes legally bound to support kids that arent his by birth.

It was something ridiculous like.. The guy not having anything to do with the kids (or the mother) except he slept with the mother once or twice... and she claimed he was the father.

The courts sided with her, even though there was DNA evidence that he wasn't the father.

 

[berkut]

Child support is for the child, rape don't chancge that. But if she is a rapist, than he should get the custody of the child. Dont think that case is a rape. Fortunetly in my country court requires evidences of genital bruise to consider rape.

 

[MobBoss]

Your objections to my analogy misses the point. If a person engages in something that gains them happiness, but comes at a small chance of negative consequences, they are not to be blamed if those come about.

When there is a reasonable expectation that the negative consequences may happen.....why shouldnt they be blamed? If a guy has a small meth lab in his house that gives him happiness....and then said meth lab explodes and sets fire to his house and then his neighbors house.....why shouldnt he be blamed?

Its part of cause...and effect.

High chance? If you do it smart, there's a very low chance. Proper condom usage yields a 99.6% success rate over a year for the average relationship. Add in a birth control pill, and there's basically no chance.

And yet people do indeed still get pregnant using both. That lightning does indeed hit people on occasion.

It also depends on our views of sex... I view it as necessary and normal as eating or walking down the street. Sure, I don't need to walk down the street as often as I do, to ensure my continued survival; just like sex. If a person were to view sex as completely unnecessary, then I could see how taking on a miniscule risk, however small, might render blame.

So...if you couldnt have sex you'd die?

Things can happen. But if those things have a miniscule chance of happening, then no-one's to blame (if they took appropriate precautions).

So, neither mother nor father should be expected to financially support a child they've had? Clarify that please, because this is precisely how I see your logic on this going.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Child support is for the child, rape don't chancge that. But if she is a rapist, than he should get the custody of the child. Dont think that case is a rape. Fortunetly in my country court requires evidences of genital bruise to consider rape.

So if it is a date rape situation where the male and female were engaged in heavy petting before he tries to force her to have intercourse against her will, it isn't actually rape?

Or even in a non-date rape situation, if the rapist sexually stimulates his victim beforehand or uses lubricants it isn't rape?

I would wouldn't call that fortunate at all for the victim, but it certainly is for many rapists.

 

[Zelig]

Fortunetly in my country court requires evidences of genital bruise to consider rape.

I hope that's not really what you meant to type.

 

[LucyDuke]

The woman in this case has the possibility to choose to interrupt the pregnancy: morning after pill, RU486, "standard" abortion, just to quote a few possibilities.
The man has no voice in the decision.

Way to miss the point!

Fortunetly in my country court requires evidences of genital bruise to consider rape.

That's barbaric.

 

[Defiant47]

And yet people do indeed still get pregnant using both. That lightning does indeed hit people on occasion.

Should people get blamed for lightning hitting them?

So...if you couldnt have sex you'd die?

So... if you couldn't walk out on the street as often as you do, and were forced to do it half as much, you'd die?

Point is that to most people, sex is a normal and healthy part of life, especially those in a relationship. Choosing not to have sex is not a real option any more than choosing to walk everywhere instead of drive, when you live in a metropolis and your workplace is far away.

So, neither mother nor father should be expected to financially support a child they've had? Clarify that please, because this is precisely how I see your logic on this going.

If you'd paid attention, you'd have noticed that in the past several posts, I've mentioned that they have to live or deal with the consequences. This includes financially supporting a child.

My issue, if you go back to the beginning, is this sentiment of blame and deservedness. Yes, both mother and father should financially support the child. But they should not be blamed for what happened, or socially lambasted for their actions.

 

[MobBoss]

Should people get blamed for lightning hitting them?

If they are out in a rain storm waving a big piece of metal around....YES.

If you are voluntarily engaging in activity that has an expected result you cant be shocked that said result actually happens!!!

So... if you couldn't walk out on the street as often as you do, and were forced to do it half as much, you'd die?

The analogy being so terrible, this doesnt refute my point at all.

Point is that to most people, sex is a normal and healthy part of life, especially those in a relationship. Choosing not to have sex is not a real option any more than choosing to walk everywhere instead of drive, when you live in a metropolis and your workplace is far away.

Choosing to not have sex is a choice millions of people make each and every day for various reasons. Sex isnt a need and you wont die because you dont get it. People do have options here, and you claiming otherwise doesnt change that simple fact.

My issue, if you go back to the beginning, is this sentiment of blame and deservedness. Yes, both mother and father should financially support the child. But they should not be blamed for what happened, or socially lambasted for their actions.

I dont blame the guy for having a child. I blame him for trying to get out of it by claiming rape 3 years after the fact.

 

[Defiant47]

Choosing to not have sex is a choice millions of people make each and every day for various reasons. Sex isnt a need and you wont die because you dont get it. People do have options here, and you claiming otherwise doesnt change that simple fact.

There are lots of things that people don't "need" and "won't die" if they don't do it. Should they get all blame for any negative consequences arising from engaging in these activities, even when the chances are small and the precautions are taken?

I dont blame the guy for having a child. I blame him for trying to get out of it by claiming rape 3 years after the fact.

Our discourse had since evolved to an analysis of the more general sentiment in this subject.

 

[MobBoss]

There are lots of things that people don't "need" and "won't die" if they don't do it. Should they get all blame for any negative consequences arising from engaging in these activities, even when the chances are small and the precautions are taken?

Why is it so shocking that people should be held responsible for the consequences of things they actually did?

Even if all the precautions are taken, sometimes things happen, and yes, there should be responsibility involved.

I mean what the hell....

 

[LucyDuke]

Word choice, Mobby. Look carefully.

 

[Defiant47]

There are lots of things that people don't "need" and "won't die" if they don't do it. Should they get all blame for any negative consequences arising from engaging in these activities, even when the chances are small and the precautions are taken?

Why is it so shocking that people should be held responsible for the consequences of things they actually did?

Even if all the precautions are taken, sometimes things happen, and yes, there should be responsibility involved.

I mean what the hell....

If you'd paid attention, you'd have noticed that in the past several posts, I've mentioned that they have to live or deal with the consequences. This includes financially supporting a child.

My issue, if you go back to the beginning, is this sentiment of blame and deservedness. Yes, both mother and father should financially support the child. But they should not be blamed for what happened, or socially lambasted for their actions.

Are you even reading my posts???

 

[berkut]

So if it is a date rape situation where the male and female were engaged in heavy petting before he tries to force her to have intercourse against her will, it isn't actually rape?

Or even in a non-date rape situation, if the rapist sexually stimulates his victim beforehand or uses lubricants it isn't rape?

I would wouldn't call that fortunate at all for the victim, but it certainly is for many rapists.

Lube won't make the vaginal canal expand, that would require a lot of stimulation especialy considering that the victing is frightened and nauseated. The rapist would have to immobilize the victin which leaves marks that would be taken in acount in the case.

Did you considered the possibility of an angry date misreporting a rape? there is a proverb "hell has no fury like a woman scorned"... So let the CSIs tell.

 

[Ergo Sum]

Lube won't make the vaginal canal expand, that would require a lot of stimulation especialy considering that the victing is frightened and nauseated. The rapist would have to immobilize the victin which leaves marks that would be taken in acount in the case.

Did you considered the possibility of an angry date misreporting a rape? there is a proverb "hell has no fury like a woman scorned"... So let the CSIs tell.

The point is rape isn't synonymous with physical violence. That isn't necessary for rape - threatening violence or social dynamics are often enough to cross the 'voluntary' line. There's another danger of prostitution: quite often the prostitutes are being treated like crap, threatened with financial or physical ruin, etc., to keep them in line.

As for Mobboss's polemic about sex - while I certainly agree that children should be financially supported by their parents, the whole "sex is for reproduction" line smacks of unnecessary moralism. People have sex for different reasons, there's nothing wrong with casual sex meant for pleasure.

 

[berkut]

I think a CSI can tell if a woman was wet and relaxed or stressed and frightened

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is simply not true:


Barriers to Credibility: Understanding and Countering Rape Myth

Myth: A "true victim" is one who sustains serious, visible physical injuries such as
knife wounds, broken bones, severe lacerations, heavy bruising or vaginal tears.

Fact: Physical injuries apart from the rape itself are rare and sexual assault leaves no visible physical “evidence” different from consensual sexual activity. In the Rape in America study, 70% of victims reported no physical injuries; 24% of victims reported minor physical injuries; only 4% reported serious physical injuries.33 Approximately 1% of rape victims have moderate to severe genital injuries.34

It even came up in the case where I served on the jury, which involved digital penetration instead of rape. It was carefully explained to us by experts that while vaginal bruising may be present in such cases, it certainly wasn't present in all of them. That even a complete absence of vaginal bruising was not evidence that the attack did not occur. In this particular case, the victim did have vaginitis. But experts explained this may or may not have been due to the attack.

I think the Brazilian government, and even the local Roman Catholic Church, are hopelessly backward in this regard. The latter because they don't want women to get abortions after actual rapes:

Rape of Girl, 15, Exposes Abuses in Brazil Prison System

It was at Abaetetuba, in the northeastern state of Para on the fringes of the Amazon, that a 15-year-old girl arrested on suspicion of petty theft was illegally placed among 34 male inmates in late October. For 26 days they treated her as their plaything, raping and torturing her repeatedly. Sometimes she traded sex for food; other times, she was simply raped, federal investigators here said.

The police in the jail did more than turn their backs on the violence. They shaved her head with a knife to make her look more like a boy, investigators said, and now are blaming her for lying about her age.

No change in Brazil after rape of jailed girl by 21 men

Her screams could be heard from the street. Yet police refused to act, and it took a tip to the local media to finally free her.

After the uproar of the case, the Para state governor, congressmen, and even the Brazilian president vowed to tackle the problems that caused the assault: callous, corrupt police and a jail system with few separate cells for women. The jailhouse was demolished.

Yet Para, a jungle state twice the size of France stretching inland from Brazil’s northeastern Atlantic coast, still only has six separate cells for women at its 132 jails.

Judge Clarice Maria de Andrade, who approved the girl’s imprisonment, was merely transferred to another jurisdiction without even a censure. It’s also far from clear whether the current judicial inquiry, held behind closed doors because the victim was a minor, will yield any convictions.

The Amazon is littered with such hard-luck stories and towns, where a dearth of opportunity and an abundance of lawlessness are an explosive mixture giving rise to wanton environmental destruction, land grabbing, contract killing, debt slavery and an egregious lack of concern for human rights.

“It just happened to be this girl, but it could have been any one of hundreds here in this city,” said Roman Catholic Bishop Flavio Giovenale, who has received death threats for speaking out against police involved in corruption and organized crime.

Brazil: Jokes About Rape and the Limit of Humor

Brazilian stand-up comedian Rafinha Bastos, considered by the New York Times [pt] to be the celebrity who creates the most impact on Twitter, has raised much controversy by declaring in a show – and right after having his statement reproduced by Rolling Stone magazine – that:

“Every woman I see on the streets complaining they have been raped is incredible ugly.” […] “ What are you complaining about? You should thank God. It wasn't a crime for you, it was an opportunity.” […] “ The man who did it [the rape] does not deserve to go to jail, he deserves a hug.”

Brazil girl, alleged rape victim, aborts twins

RIO DE JANEIRO — A 9-year-old girl who was carrying twins, allegedly after being raped by her stepfather, underwent an abortion Wednesday despite complaints from Brazil's Roman Catholic church.

Abortion is illegal in Brazil, but judges can make exceptions if the mother's life is in danger or the fetus has no chance of survival.

atima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the 15-week-old pregnancy posed a serious risk to the 80-pound girl.
"She is very small. Her uterus doesn't have the ability to hold one, let alone two children," Maia told the Jornal do Brasil newspaper.

But Marcio Miranda, a lawyer for the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil, said the girl should have carried the twins to term and had a cesarean section.
"It's the law of God: Do not kill. We consider this murder," Miranda said in comments reported by O Globo.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x287674

The following story has been translated in another forum that a Catholic bishop apparently stated that rape victims frequently lie about rape to try to get abortions. Here is the original story in Portugese.

And here is a partial babelfish translation:

“We go to admit until the woman has been forcene, that she was victim… A violence without the assent of the woman is very difficult, is difficult”, comments. The bishop arranges the hair and crucifixo. “Already vi many cases that I cannot cite here. I have 52 years of priest… It has the cases where it is not violence well… [The woman says] “did not want, did not want, but it happened…” “, says. “Then it knows what I made” At this moment, the bishop catches the cover of the penxs of the reporter and shows as it talked with women. “I spoke: boot here”, asking for, after that, it reporter to incase the cylinder of the penxs in the orifice of the cover. The bishop starts to move the hand, preventing the rabbet. “It understood, né? It has cases thus., of “ah, did not want, did not want, but I finished leaving”. The BO is for not facilitating the abortion”, says.

The bishop continues the reasoning. “The woman speaks to the doctor who was forcene. To the times nor she is pregnant. Without previous examination, without constatação of rape, the abortion is set free”, declares, arranging the hair and crucifixo.

The religious account of an action to make it difficult the abortion in Guarulhos. Its mobilization made with that the Public prosecution service notified the Self-Regulating Body of the Medicine Profession of the State of São Paulo and the union of the professionals of health of Guarulhos, Itaquaquecetuba and Mairiporã on the prohibition of the practical one without the BO, police inquest and judicial authorization.

Dom Bergonzini finds that “the person who if judges victim” has to make the BO and to point the name of the aggressor. “Son, underneath does not exist nothing of the sun that is not known. She is very difficult. If the person to make same question, goes to make spermatozoon examination, etc, goes to discover [who is aggressive]. Justice has to go behind.” For the bishop, with this action in Guarulhos, the church “gave a step to the front, even so, exactly in these cases, the abortion is unacceptable”.

 

[reddishrecue]

There's something that says that if a woman does something to a man that would be considered rape because that's the way such a case could get started. Another thing is that this guy doesn't want to pay up and would rather keep all the child support money.

 

[Syterion]

There's something that says that if a woman does something to a man that would be considered rape because that's the way such a case could get started. Another thing is that this guy doesn't want to pay up and would rather keep all the child support money.

What is this I dont even

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yet another really weird incident has occurred locally, and was the feature story in the paper this morning:

He says he said no to sex, now says no to child support









So, what do you think?

Is it possible to be raped by a woman? Is his story credible?

Is it right to be financially obligated to a woman who had sex twice in the same night with two different men, moves to another state, has another child, gets pregnant yet again, and is now going to marry the latest father?

Should 13-year-olds and 15-year-olds be held financially responsible? What about cases where the female is an adult and it is considered to be rape?

Should males essentially always have to pay child support, no matter the circumstances?

Should you wear a chastity belt to parties, just in case you pass out and a woman has sex with you while you are unconscious?

1. Its possible sure, but her simply being older shouldn't mean anything.

2. Theoretically you should be responsible for what crap you do, regardless. This is why the Age of Consent is 18. I don't agree with it being called RAPE if a party is younger, but it is careless and shouldn't be endorsed by the Law.

3. Well, unless he's raising the kid for some reason, in which case she should pay child support. Or rape was really involved...

4.

Or don't get KOed