Should statutary rape victims be forced to pay child support?

How are they similar - in particular with respect to law. ? If you spill a drink - you have two choices - you can clean up the mess or let it fester. How is the decision on whether to clean up the mess similar to the act of spilling the drink ?

If someone throws a rock through your window and you don't fix the window and it rains a week later and the rain ruins a couch - when you take this person to court asking for the costs of the window and the couch - the Judge will tell you that you are entitled to costs for the window but not for the couch. You are responsible to mitigate the damage.

Once again you completely avoid addressing the rule of law problems given in my post.

 

Referring to 'rule of law' is a circular argument.

Do you understand that? Referring to one law, and saying we should base another law off the legal definitions in the first law.

Maybe you meant to say "consistency in the law".
However, even that is not necessarily true either, since the first law can still be justified even if the terminology of the legal concepts it uses are not actually entirely correct. (i.e. it's not at all inconsistent to punish the woman while at the same time holding the male partially responsible)

 

The topic is tough enough to discuss without mischaracterizations that is all. It is a fetus. I am a catholic and i will have to answer to st Peter for the in voting for dems that favor abortion. It is the law of the land, I do not think a fetus should be aborted after it can live on it's own in a preemie natal care. I think that is 5 months. A women should know she is pregnant by 3 months so that gives her 2 months to decide what to do with her pregnancy. After that I don't care if it is rape, incest anything but a choice between the mother or the fetus living. The life of a living breathing conscious person is more important than an undeveloped fetus. I would also allow the fetus to be removed if it is so badly mutated that it could not live a conscious life without severe emotional or physical pain.

 

Oh, that's not what I was talking about, in that quote.

 

So it seems like the entire argument about whether underage males should be forced to pay for child support boils down to an abortion argument, in some ways.

Something I'm not going to get into here too much because that subject would derail this thread.

But I will say that I don't think the woman should be blamed for not having an abortion at 4-5 weeks, certainly not 10-12 weeks. It's sort of a human being. Development begins much earlier than many of you are presuming.

 

Of course it is the woman's fault if she decides to carry an unintended pregnancy to term. That decision is hers alone and thus the responsibility for the consequences of that decision.

We can parse out different scenarios if you like. What about the case where the condom breaks .. the woman refuses to take the morning after pill and shortly after finds out she is pregnant.

If not placing the onus on the woman to make the decision of whether to keep continue the pregnancy or not- where on earth should the onus be placed ? What kind of ridiculousness is this ?

If she wants to continue the pregnancy she can do this - the responsibility for this decision is hers and hers alone. Given this reality - the consequences for this decision are hers and hers alone - otherwise we violate the rule of law.

 

There's a problem with your logical line of reasoning.
You may be putting the blame on the woman for not doing something that's ethically/morally wrong.

If someone commits a crime, they shouldn't be punished more for not committing another wrong (even if that wrong is not illegal) to correct the damage caused by their crime.

Getting an abortion isn't simply like "cleaning up a spilled drink" or "repairing a broken window".

(I agree if it were, you would be right, but it's not)​

 

Should a woman be forced to carry to term her unborn child conceived via forced rape by her father,her brother or a complete and total strangerThat to me seems like cruel and unusual punishment .

 

What are you talking about ? It is not a circular argument. This debate is not about whether the rule of law is correct .. that is the only way my argument would be circular. Get a grip.

All law is supposed to be based on the "rules on which laws are supposed to be based" = the rule of law and other things. If you are arguing that this should be changed and we should reject the rule of law that is something completely different. What the fk are you talking about ?

Never did I claim that one law should be based on another law (although this is what is done often in relation to precedent). The "rule of law" is not a law. The rule of law is the rules and principles on which all of are laws are based. Either a law violates those principles or it does not.

 

So you are not arguing about what the law should be, but what the actual law is, and you're claiming the judge who set that precedent did not follow the law?

You should really avoid vague statements, because then I have no idea what you are talking about and can only assume you are implying something, but often times I am wrong about what I thought you were implying.

I can't have an argument if I'm not certain what you are talking about.

Could you quickly (in just one sentence) explain what you meant "the rule of law" to apply to?
Were you talking about what the law should be, or what the courts have decided in their judgement?

 

What problem in logic ? I have not blamed the woman for not doing something ethically or morally wrong. I have simply stated that the person that makes a unilateral decision is responsible for the consequences of that decision.

It is you that wants to punish someone for decision in which he had no part.

 

I don't think I can have an argument here. You're using too much vague terminology, and so any argument we have seems like it's going to get based on semantics.

You also didn't bother to state which decision of the woman you are talking about (having sex or getting an abortion), so that just adds confusion and makes it hard for me to respond to you.

The decision to have sexual intercourse was not a unilateral decision on the part of the woman. We've already discussed that.

 

Aborting an unintended pregnancy is taking responsibility for the consequences of ones actions .. just as cleaning up a spilled drink is taking responsibility for the consequences of ones actions.

No one is punishing the woman ? The woman is not being forced to do something she does not want. Quit making up nonsense.

How is the woman being punished ?

 

He had sex with her!

She can't undo the damage that's been caused without killing a human fetus!

 

It seems like much of this argument in this thread boils down to an abortion argument.

That's probably a big part of why you disagree from others who believe the male should be responsible for paying some child support.

 

What do you suggest?

 

I am not being vague at all. I have stated numerous times that the decision being referred to is the unilateral decision to continue the pregnancy. That is the entire topic of the conversation.

And of course the decision to have sex was a unilateral decision on the part of the woman .. unless she was raped - but that is not what is being discussed.

 

If abortion is like a murder (ethically, but not legally), then could you agree that the man should be held responsible for child support?

Those who believe the man should pay child support do not believe the woman getting an abortion would be "correcting" the situation.

 

It's no less rape than when a woman changes her mind in the middle of sex. Though, that is illegal and the man is punished. Unfortunately, too many men still want to have sex with women they don't know well. Men need to learn to control themselves.

 

I can see many reasons why those on the far liberal side would not see any reason why the male should have to pay child support.

First, they don't think the male should have to accept any responsibility (saying "he couldn't consent"), and then second, saying the woman should have just got an abortion, so it's her fault if a baby is born.

 

Fixed that for you. It is a murder when some drunk driver kills a zygote. How is that different? She wanted it? It wasn't a person, according to you. No harm, no foul and no one gets prosecuted for that. It's not even a death, according to you, right?

 

Not sure what you're saying. I think you may be misunderstanding my position.

 

NO to the abortion. She chose to rape him. She knows what can happen. She needs to take responsibility for her actions. I guess it's his fault for being too young to have understood what he was doing and not know how to handle the sex drive of puberty. Maybe his parents are at fault for something, but he can't be held responsible. I'm conservative and paid my 16 years of child support.

 

I might be.

 

Now what are you blubbering about. The abortion argument has nothing to do with the legal questions involved. Your problem is that you are trying to conflate a moral position with a legal one.

Regardless of what your moral position is - the fact of the matter is that - "experts disagree" with respect to the personhood of the zygote - and long after.

Experts disagree = "we don't know" / "we don't know otherwise". The idea that we should make law on the basis of "we don't know/ we don't know otherwise" is preposterous nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that abortion is legal. The fact of the matter is that it is the woman's sole choice to continue a pregnancy or abort that process.

One the basis of these "FACTS" is how legal discussions are conducted... not on the basis of some hypothetical world where abortion is illegal and where the choice of whether or not to continue a pregnancy is not the sole choice of the woman.

The man has no choice in the decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy - by LAW. To force a man to be responsible for financial consequences of the unilateral decision of another person to carry a pregnancy to term is a violation of the rule of law.

This has nothing to do with the abortion debate and everything to do with the law.