Should statutary rape victims be forced to pay child support?

That's why I stated your argument is a circular one.
You state that because abortion is legal, the law should require her to do that legal thing if she wants to get off the hook and not be entirely financially responsible for her pregnancy.

That makes no sense though. The one does not connect to the other.

Laws are based on moral/ethical roots, not other laws.

 

For the 10th time - the decision to have sex is separate from the decision of whether or not to carry an unintended pregnancy to term.

 

I understand that now, since you clarified it. But my quote you are quoting here is from before you clarified it and I understood you.

 

This is complete gibberish. I never stated what you claim - never mind engage in circular reasoning. I don't think you know what circular fallacy is.

 

The man is not being held responsible for the woman's decision to continue carrying a pregnancy, he is being held responsible for having sex.

It just so happens that if the woman chooses abortion, then the child has been killed, and then there is no child he needs to be held responsible to.

The fact that the woman legally holds choice over whether the man is going to be held responsible does not necessarily negate his responsibility.
The existence of his child is not merely just a consequence of the woman's decision not to continue the pregnancy, as some may like to imagine.

(If the fetus did not exist yet, that would be true)

 

The man is not being held responsible for having sex. Quit making up nonsense and pretending it is true. The man is financially responsible for the decision of a woman to carry an unintended pregnancy to term.

You then engage in your previously corrected fallacy by claiming a child exists when you know damn well you can not prove this in the early stages of pregnancy.

 

It's hard to examine your statement without breaking it down into semantics.

Can you please rephrase your statement, being very careful with your wording, so neither of us has to nitpick at the meaning of specific words.

Because right now, your statement is both true and untrue, depending on the exact meaning of your statement.

The man is not financially responsible for the decision of the woman, even though his responsibility is dependent on the decision of the woman.

Let me give you an example. Suppose person A accidentally causes an injury to person B. So person A has to be the hospital bills. But before person A can start paying, person C accidentally causes death to person B.
Now person A no longer has to pay those hospital bills.
Person A's responsibility is dependent on the actions of person C.

That, of course, does not mean person A is responsible for the actions of person C.

 

I think everyone sees the point you are making. But the responsibility of the man is to the child he created, regardless of whether or not he has a say in the decision to abort or not. Many POS men would simply bastardize every kid they had if that were not the case.

 

What semantics ? Clearly you have no clue what the term means.

What word do you not understand ?

"The man is financially responsible for the decision of a woman to carry an unintended pregnancy to term"

I will rephrase. The only phrase that is not completely obvious is "Unintended pregnancy". This means a pregnancy that was not intended = the couple was having sex but were not intending to conceive.

If a couple has sex that results in an unintended pregnancy the choice of whether or not to carry that pregnancy to term resides solely with the woman - by Law. The man can not compel the woman to abort, nor can he compel the woman to carry the pregnancy to term.

If the woman decides to carry the pregnancy to term and a child born as a consequence of this decision - by law, the man is financially responsible for that child.

The man is then responsible for the financial consequences of the decision of a woman to carry an unintended pregnancy to term should a child result from that decision.

 

Let me give another example. If I accidentally (my fault but I'm not aware of it at the time) spill a liquid onto one of your expensive belongings, and you decide to wipe the liquid off before it causes damage, then I am not responsible for paying for the damage.
Even though the decision was in your hands, I could have still ended up being responsible for paying for the damage.

 

I know it should be simple but, some seem to have great difficulty understanding the rather straighforward rule of law points I have been making.

You claiming "The man has a responsibility" does not make it so.

You claiming "He created a child" is also silliness if you mean by this that the zygote is a child. I agree that the man had a part in the creation of a zygote but - the zygote can not be said to be "a child" from a legal perspective unless you can prove this claim is true - which you can't.

The creation of a child results from carrying that zygote to term. That is the scientific fact we know for sure.

There responsibility for making the decision as to whether or not an unintended pregnancy is carried to term resides solely with the woman. It this decision is made unilaterally it is then the woman who is responsible for the creation of a child. While this could not have happened without the man having sex, the decision to have sex and the decision to create a child are not the same and you are conflating the two.

The rule of law states that one person is not to be punished for the actions of another. Punishing the man by making him responsible for the financial consequences of the unilateral decision of another to carry an unintended pregnancy to term is doing just that - whether we like it or not.

Equality under the law is also violated. The woman has the ability to avoid the financial consequences that could result from an unintended pregnancy where the man does not - whether we like it or not.

Belief in the rule of law, individual liberty, equality, and the founding principles is not belief in the rule of law and so on - only for things you agree with. Everyone beliefs in that. Belief in the rule of law is belief in the rule of law for things you disagree with.

If you only believe in individual liberty/freedom for things you agree with then you really do not believe in liberty and freedom at all.

 

Yes, that part I agree with so far.
​

This is the problematic part.

I would not say the man's responsibility is for the consequences of the woman's decision to carry the pregnancy.
I would say his responsibility is for the existence of his child.

You seem to be conflating responsibility & cause with outcome determination.

The woman having an effect on his outcome does not automatically mean she is "responsible" for his outcome.

But it depends exactly how one chooses to semantically define "responsible", "for" or "consequence".

 

It's a baby inside the mother, especially if it's viable outside the womb.

But it's ok to use "fetus". Is it the fault of the fetus it was created through rape or incest? Is it to blame in any way?

 

The man is not being punished for the actions of the woman. You don't seem to be able to understand that part.

The woman can kill her fetus, but her choice not to kill the fetus does not make her responsible for bringing the child into existence.

 

Maybe the real reason equality under the law is violated is because she is allowed to get an abortion.
That's the part that is creating the inequality.

 

Define "for", as used in this statement.

I think that's where the problem lies.

The woman should not be punished for not killing her fetus. Think of it that way.

("punished" = the entire burden of child support being on her, and not any on the man)

 

I'm not disagreeing with your statement here. But as long as abortion is made legalized, the question is what you think should happen in that situation.

 

The male is not responsible for her choosing to carry an unintended pregnancy to term.
He is responsible for sexual intercourse and taking care of his child, as long as the woman didn't choose to kill it.

 

That's a basic concept that I agree with, but it is does not absolutely fully apply in all cases.
In other words, it's generally true but not quite universally true.

I think the real issue, however, is the problematic nature of ascribing "cause".
There was this same problem in the thread debating the "felony murder" legal doctrine.

For example, if someone shoots a bullet at a victim, and a superhero with incredibly fast speed can intercept that bullet with a metal shield, but chooses not to, does that mean the superhero "caused" the victim to die?
What if both the first person and the superhero had good reasons for doing what they did? You see how the effect of "cause" can get complicated and entangled really quick.

 

That doesn't mean it's not justice.

If her "ability" to avoid the consequences involves committing a wrong (even if it's not a legal wrong), then she cannot be seen as legally obligated to do that to avoid the consequences.

Just because the law might make abortion legal does not necessarily mean the law recognizes that act as not being wrong.

 

anyone but the rapist, and the rapist should not get visitation

unless we talking consensual sex between like a 15 year old and a 16 year old

then I think rape is the wrong term

 

I disagree with that, in some cases, but that's a controversial debate for another topic.

Sometimes they set a very low standard for evidence, and then the man might never get to see his child even though the man might be innocent and only have been sentenced to 2 or 3 years, because the judge knew the evidence was weak.

 

There's numerous more situations where a man "convicted of rape" should not necessarily be denied visitation.
(Sometimes rape scenarios are not so black and white as people normally imagine)

It's too complicated to get into here though. Don't want to derail this thread.

 

What I've realized in many of these complicated contentious arguments, is that a lot of the arguments come down to semantics.
The English language is not always a direct language for being able to convey simple logical concepts.
Words can have multiple different meanings, and logical arguments can hinge on those different possible meanings.

 

if the man or women is an adult and the child (boy or girl is a minor) and is the father of the child.... that is proof, a paternity test will show

but agree with your point for adults, there have to be real evidence of a rape, not just he said she said

i really wish there was another term for consensual sex with a teen as I think it's not rape in the sense of the word, underage sex with a minor is what it is, still a crime, but not really rape