Should statutary rape victims be forced to pay child support?

That's still potentially vague. And one more example of what I mean by semantic arguments.

The "child" could be 15, or 16 years old.

"Child" can have different meanings.

 

No, it is not. The question is at what point in time does it become a separate and distinct individual and not a appendage to a person. I said 5 months as at that time a hospital with a good neonatal specialty department can provide external support that the pre-term baby. I heard that Mass general or Boston Childrens just a year or two ago was able to extract the fetus from a woman who was 22 weeks pregnant and who died in a car accident. The baby was born and was kept in the hospital for about a year, but then the father was able to take her home.

 

The woman can give the child up for adoption if she wants to avoid the financial consequences of her decision to carry the child to term.

As stated previously - the man has no ability to avoid the financial consequences of the decision of another.

The woman can also avoid these consequences by abortion. If she chooses otherwise that is her choice. No is punishing her by forcing consequences of someone else's actions on her .

This is not equal justice under the law. Your argument is a load of nonsense and as usual you completely fail to address the point I have made - despite the fact that I have addressed all your points.

 

He could have avoided sex with her.

 

Both those statements are technically true, but you are obviously implying something else from them that is not true.

She would have to do something that is potentially morally/ethically very problematic to avoid those consequences.

In fact, for those who believe in an afterlife, she would not be avoiding the consequences by getting an abortion. And thus she cannot be expected to.

What this really centers around is that the woman should not be blamed for not getting an abortion.

 

agree, I also said that above.... consensual sex is different then forced sex

in my state up until a few years ago 14 was the legal age, now it's 16 with a five year buffer, I think that is much more appropriate, no reason a 50 year old man shoudl be having sex with a 14 year old

 

On what basis is he responsible ?? because you say so. What a load of nonsense and once again you do nothing but talk over the legal points in relation to the rule of law I have been making.

The man is made financially responsible by law for the consequences of the decision of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

Obviously - if she had not made this decision there would be no financial responsibility as the child would not exist.

Consent to sex is not consent to carrying an unintended pregnancy to term - for the 10th time. You are running around in circles making the same dumb arguments - pretending like you have addressed the refutations to those arguments when you have not.

How is consent to sex - consent to carrying an unintended pregnancy to term ?

 

I don't believe those legal points apply, and have already explained my reasons.

 

He had sex and it's his child.

Her ability to decide if she wants to kill that fetus does not change that, if she chooses life.

 

What is this BS. here ability to avoid consequences is her choice .. regardless of what her moral convictions. She can abort, she can adopt. She could also refrain from sex if she did not want to be in the place of facing the moral dilemma.

It is not moral to violate the rule of law. It is not moral to have sex with someone under the pretense that a child is not the objective and then change her mind .. leaving the dude holding the bag as a consequence of her deception.

What a load of nonsense.

 

You have not even addressed my points relation to the rule of law never mind explained your reasons.

Your claim that the rule of law does not apply is based on what prey tell ? What a joke.

 

The fact that it's her choice does not make her responsible for it.

Do you know why that is? That's because she is ethically (if not legally) responsible if she makes the choice that would void her legal responsibility.

 

I meant your points about particular "rule of law" concepts do not apply the way you are trying to invoke them here.

 

"Choice" doesn't mean the consequences are all to blame on her.

That's an easy logical mistake to make.

 

So what if it is "his child". A sperm donor or an adopted child may be the child of some dude on the basis of genetics. That does not make that dude financial responsible.

Again you spout nonsense rather than address the rule of law problems.

 

Someone has to be financially responsible, so it might as well be him.

Yes, I would say genetics is a small part of the argument, though not the entire argument.

It's not like someone stole his DNA and made a child out of it. (intentionally at least)

 

I suppose one of the real reasons for child support is that no one wants to have to "punish" the woman by making her have to give up her child if she wants to keep it.

It's usually not a good idea to separate mother from child if it can be avoided.

 

What logical mistake ? Choice does mean that the consequences of that choice are her fault. What a bunch of idiocy.

Also you cherry picked on part of one sentence out of my post - completely ignoring the rest of my post which completely trashed your nonsensical attempt at a moral argument. What a joke.

 

No it does not.

That's why criminals get charged with "felony murder" all the time. (I don't know if you're familiar with that)

I realize it may seem obvious to you, but that is not actually how it actually is.

If someone else has created circumstances in which the person makes a choice, then even if they're the ones making the choice, they may not be responsible for that choice. If the woman makes the choice you are saying she should make, then many believe that would be a moral wrong. Therefore she shouldn't be held responsible for not making that decision.

 

What a joke. How about the person that is responsible for decision to create a child being responsible for their decision.

 

Pro-lifers believe both parents are equally responsible for making that decision.

Pro-lifers do not believe the woman not getting an abortion is choosing to "create a child" through that decision.

That's why I stated that what this argument may really be coming down to is an Abortion argument.

 

More gibberish. Felony murder involved a choice - say to sell arms to a terrorist. This has nothing to do with this issue.

You are grasping at non existent straws because you can not make a coherent argument.

Your claim that the woman is not responsible for the consequences of her choice to have a baby is beyond absurd. That is like claiming that the person that did the murder is not responsible for the murder.

You are lost and confused.

 

In felony murder cases, the criminal is punished for a choice made by someone else. But the reasoning is that that choice only had to be made because of the criminal's original choice to commit the crime, so they view the criminal as responsible.
Even though it was a choice made by someone else.

 

Give a specific example.

 

I can see why you may think that.

However, the woman's choices have additional ethical/moral consequences. That's why she can not necessarily be held responsible if she chooses to make the choice to avoid those ethical/moral consequences.