Should statutary rape victims be forced to pay child support?

I've heard this "keep it zipped" idea before, and it is as problematic now as ever. It's a big state solution to a social problem, so you only exacerbate things. If you haven't noticed, we have been holding the father and tax payers responsible for bastard children for decades now, and things have only gotten worse.

Back in the 80s, I lived in the middle of "the hood" and can only recall one married couple (two crackheads and a baby). The girls didn't want to get married, but they sure wanted to get pregnant. A single mother was a welfare mother, and welfare mothers got free housing, healthcare, food stamps, and money from the state. It was a multi-generational problem then, and I'm guessing things haven't gotten any better.

Your solution results in the father not being able to get an honest job because child support will be withheld from his salary so they generally become drug dealers or work under the table. Your solution means no fathers being around to raise their children. Your solution allows for multiple generations to be raised by the state, and their only role model is a mother who gets free money for having sex with anybody she wants, doesn't need a job, and feels absolutely no responsibility to provide for her children.



All stemming from a simple-minded idea that the state take over responsibility for bastard children by punishing men for thinking with their dicks. In that video, where is the girl's father? She probably doesn't know him. Where is the social ostracism from being on welfare? It doesn't exist. Where are the fathers of her children? Nobody knows. Where is the social pressure to keep her damn legs squeezed tight? None whatsoever. In fact, she gets paid to be a welfare slut.

 

I already comment on ethical/moral issues that you brought up - and you ignored those comments. Either respond to comments previously made or shut up.

 

Two criminals are speeding away from police. One criminal in the passenger seat reaches for something that looks like a gun. The police shoot him. It turned out not to be a gun. The criminal driving the vehicle is charged with the killing, since the killing would not have taken place if he was not driving the vehicle speeding away from police.

Two robbers break into a home. The homeowner sees two intruders and gets scared. He shoots one of them. The other criminal is charged with the shooting, because the homeowner might not have shot his gun if they were not both there.

 

Now you are making up stuff. Provide examples of this happening in the US justice system. I call BS.

 

Those are two real stories. I started threads about them in the past here.

It might take me a while to find them if you really want to read them.

I never said that was fair, but that's how the law is interpreted in many states.

here's one of the stories:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...lars-guilty-of-murder.398532/#post-1064786567

 

It would not be some big surprise to find yet another example of violation of the rule of law, and basic principles of justice within our third world justice system.

That would be the only point you would be proving. I can give you a bunch of other examples if you like.

It is called the "slippery slope" when you violate the fundamental principles in one area it is not long before that precedent is used in other areas.

Look at the "me too" movement for example - The idea that a woman must be believed (essentially that women don't lie) in relation to a sexual assault is a violation of the rule of law - "innocent until proven guilty".

Asset forfeiture is another example. The list goes on an on. What do you want me to tell you other than our system is a joke.

 

I don't believe the male necessarily has an entitlement not to provide for his own child, just because the woman has a choice over whether that child survives.

The child is sort of halfway already into existence, even before the woman decides whether to keep giving it life.

 

Ok, I won't disagree with you there.

I was just providing an example of legal precedents, since you seemed to want to base this on comparisons to other laws.

 

Giftedone, you seem to be turning this into an argument about whether a regular man should be required to pay child support.

That's not really the specific subject issue being discussed in this thread, so maybe we should not debate about that here.

 

Is then that not a good idea to promote contraception?

But what would be the societal consequences of cutting welfare whilst banning abortions?

 

Why not? In most cases of Statutory rape it's consential.

Statutory rape

 

I have not been comparing to other laws in general. As stated previously the "rule of Law" is not a law. It is a set of principles by which laws are supposed to be governed.

How many times have you heard some political or bureaucratic pundit claim "we uphold the rule of law" or criticize some other nation for not upholding the rule of law.

Principles such as "innocent until proven guilty" have been around for millennia. Justice systems around the world are gauged on the basis of whether or not such principles are upheld.. those that do are considered Just.. those that don't are considered kangarooland.

I hate to break it to you but you are arguing for "kangarooland".

Perhaps you yearn for a world where the rule of law does not apply .. where there is no Equal Justice under the law .. where there is no "innocent until proven guilty" .. where the punishment does not fit the crime ... and so on.

You are welcome to your opinion - I just do not share it.

 

Why are you asking the questions to answers that every Australian should be very well versed in just from Australia's history of forced abortion, contraception and malnutrition of the indigenous people of your country? So you tell us how we should handle unwanted babies or as they mature "PEOPLE"!

 

We've been teaching sex-ed to teenagers since I was a teenager. Everybody knows about the various contraceptive methods, risks of contracting STDs, etc. and this hasn't changed a damn thing. Girls are as promiscuous as ever, and guys have always been guys. The only reason every female in my junior high school wasn't pregnant is because us guys weren't members of menudo or on the front page of tiger beat.

The societal consequences of cutting welfare and banning abortion are already somewhat known because for most of human history, there has been no welfare state and abortions were not readily
https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p23-197.pdf

In 1930, 8.2% of first births were to unmarried women. By 1990, that jumped to 40.5%. When the pill became readily available in the mid 60s, the numbers skyrocketed.

We've tried it your way, and it hasn't worked.

 

We are talking about male victims of statutory rape not females

 

https://ifstudies.org/blog/marriage-single-parenthood-and-the-2016-vote



Oh snap once again. It appears that republicans are better parents than democrats.

 

Sorry are you suggesting that statutory rape is consensual when you own posted quote states that it is between two individuals of different ages?

 

Oh! Snap again it seems that people will vote for those who will listen to thier plight

 

I reply with links to studies and you reply with cartoons.

 

Oh! Snap!

 

I just did not find it very relevant

Single parent does not equal welfare soaking crack head

 

Well, I do think women should get more lenient punishments in cases of statutory rape - in general - but not always, depending on the particular circumstance.

Maybe the fact that she can get pregnant and force the man to pay child support should also be a factor that is considered. Maybe a woman should even be punished more than the man.

 

Generally a bad idea to have a child alone.

 

I fail to see the connection between infant mortality and abortions since abortions are not counted as live births. Infant mortality has more to do with health care services for two years AFTER they are born.

https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/IMR/state/MS

Unmarried mothers: The infant mortality rate is 73 percent higher among infants born to unmarried mothers compared with those born to married mothers.

There are other factors, such as race and economic status, so maybe the point is to not have children until you're married and white.