Child Support and Rape

[Raeyh]

A child is entitled to support from both its parents. If one parent isn't present and doesn't participate in the day-to-day care and (more direct) support of the child, he or she has a duty to meet his or her obligations through providing economic support to the child.


Children has a right to be supported by its parents.

The child isn't entitled, that much is obvious, or else it would be a crime for a parent NOT to sue for child support, or to refuse to divulge the identity of the other parent, while plenty either do not sue for child support or give the identity. If it were the CHILDS entitlement, this would mean they have broken the law.
Would you like to try again.

Child neglect/abandonment is an actual crime you can go to prison for. If you don't want to take care of a child, you need to go process the child into the adoption system to ensure he is being taken care of.

[Tahar Joblis]

if the rapist is the woman and the victim is the father, there ya go.

That's one variant. The other is if the rapist is a man, and the woman decides to carry the child to term anyway.

Regardless, the thread is about, in general, a rape victim being obligated to pay support for the child conceived during rape. Now, admittedly, if the rape victim is a woman, it's less likely to REACH that point, but it's entirely possible the victim could have moral, ethical, or relgious reasons to not abort.

Regardless of how it happens, my objection is this. Child custody is awarded to whomever the court feels should have custody, based on the needs of the child. The non custodial parent typically pays support.

In what court in this country would a jduge decide that the best interests of the child are best served by being in the custody of a rapist?

Forget gender dynamics, when does this ACTUALLY happen?

It happens nearly every time a female rapist conceives via the act and chooses to carry to term; and as I've pointed out before, it is by no means unusual for women to rape men, simply largely under-recognized as such; recall the made to penetrate figure here.

This is because maternal rights are automatic; and paternal rights are not. The burden of proof lies upon the state to prove a mother unfit; and with rape by women largely unrecognized [excepting statutory rape] and quickly forgiven by the courts [in the case of women committing statutory rape] an allegation of conception by rape is far from sufficient to prove a mother is unfit. Rape is difficult to prove in the first place; and our social recognition of female rapists as abhorrent people choosing to engage in abhorrent acts, rather than as passive victims of circumstances or urges outside of their control, is lacking.

It's not by any means unusual for a woman who is raped to decide she doesn't want to be a mother, even if she does not believe in abortion or is not willing to go get one. And when she relinquishes that right, she automatically destroys her rapists rights. It is similarly not by any means unusual for a man who is raped to fail to be inspired with the desire to become a father; and he has an uphill fight in order to take custody away from his rapist even in such an event.

This is not terribly likely; and if his rapist wants to make him suffer more by requiring him to pay her child support for having raped him, she can generally therefore do so.

There is a machine out there which uses government money to support women with young children under certain circumstances; part of that machine tries to get its money back by suing the father of those children. I can tell you from experience that more often than not the so-called "support" never gets into the mother's pocketbook but rather goes directly to the state. In Erie County PA there was an office complex as part of the county courthouse which housed WIC and an office which provided payment and counseling for mothers in need. It also housed support collections, which in that case ALL went to the county. 90% of the whole staff worked in that collections office.

And for this reason, the child support enforcement regime is not by any stretch of the imagination promoting public good. The majority of child support arrears are owed to the state; the majority of child support arrears are owed by men who have no ability to pay; and as Galloism has demonstrated123 the child support requirement, from the perspective of the father, is a large imposition that, for lower-income fathers, often takes the form of a poverty trap, where the father is better able to feed himself by working less in order to reduce his obligation.

The utilitarian argument that child support is a necessary evil that prevents greater evil is bankrupt. It fails to account for the three facts that first, as Pope Joan has noted, the guardians of children with demonstrable needs are on welfare and that this money therefore goes [in the US, anyway] to the state; and second, that guardians of children with demonstrable needs are in fact eligible to benefit from most of the surviving welfare programs in the US [and a larger variety of such in other developed countries]; and third, as Galloism has demonstrated, the hardships it imposes on men lower-down on the income scale [which includes most of those who involuntarily subjected to parenthood] are significant and take the specifically counterproductive form of a poverty trap, generating incentives for the father to voluntarily gross less money in order to net a higher effective income [in the process reducing his child support contribution].

[Lenciland]

http://clarissasblog.com/2011/08/07/rape-victims-and-child-support/

This is a discussion that I've always been bothered by. Personally, I'd rather the state subsidize child care, but that makes me a filthy socialist. However, I find it disturbing that she's so cavalier about sacrificing adult rights for the sake of children. It's not just disturbing, but irrational. From rather basic logic, children are not as much people as are most adults simply due to the fact that adults have more complex cognition, introspection, and preferences. Why would any rational person think it right to involuntarily sacrifice the well being of an innocent adult for the sake of a child, especially when alternative methods exist?

I mean, I don't really like children to begin with, but still, this is an absurd notion. Of course rape victims should not be forced to pay child support, and neither should anyone else made to become a parent against their will (forced pregnancy, semen theft, etc.). If the child really needs support, that's why we have welfare programs, is it not?

How can you say that children are less human than adults. Take Mulala for example a child pushing for women's rights in Pakistan is she less human than Adolf Hitler. You cannot say that children are less human because of examples such my self I have always had more cognitive ability than most of my family, by three I wanted to be an investor, by six I thought that going green was necessary to live on this planet,I also had supported and argued many different political view points, I had a very defined personality, and I enjoyed classical music how can you say I was less of a human then than I am now. If I carry out your logic Hitler should be lauded for speeding natural selection by killing the less than human people with mental disabilities and I in your logic can go murder every patient in a mental care facility and every child in a day care and claim that I have not murdered a human as they are less than human. So in closing Bazinga!

[Greed and Death]

Child support is not a punishment for having sex. Child support is a duty owed to the child regardless of the circumstances.

If you would like to make an exception in the cases of male rape victims then you are free to petition your state legislature to amend their child support laws accordingly.

[Tahar Joblis]

Child support is not a punishment for having sex.

Punishment: A negative consequence imposed by others in response to a behavior. Being required to shell out one sixth of your income for the next eighteen [or twenty one; or twenty five] years is indeed a punishment; it is a negative consequence, it is imposed by others, and it is a response to a particular behavior, namely that of biological reproduction unaccompanied by legal custody of a child.

For having sex: For men, "having sex" is sufficient behavior to result in the punishment above. No other action is required in order for a man to receive the above punishment.

Child support, as currently practiced, is indeed a punishment for having sex. That is not necessarily all it is; it is also, for example, an instrument of class warfare and helps maintain the low socioeconomic status for black Americans [particularly in conjunction with the stacked legal system]. However, it meets all the conditions required for it to be called, accurately, a punishment for having sex.

[Salandriagado]

Child support is not a punishment for having sex.

Punishment: A negative consequence imposed by others in response to a behavior. Being required to shell out one sixth of your income for the next eighteen [or twenty one; or twenty five] years is indeed a punishment; it is a negative consequence, it is imposed by others, and it is a response to a particular behavior, namely that of biological reproduction unaccompanied by legal custody of a child.

For having sex: For men, "having sex" is sufficient behavior to result in the punishment above. No other action is required in order for a man to receive the above punishment.

Child support, as currently practiced, is indeed a punishment for having sex. That is not necessarily all it is; it is also, for example, an instrument of class warfare and helps maintain the low socioeconomic status for black Americans [particularly in conjunction with the stacked legal system]. However, it meets all the conditions required for it to be called, accurately, a punishment for having sex.

By that same argument, therefore, income taxes (in the UK at least) are punishments for turning 18.

[Gravlen]

Child support is not a punishment for having sex.

Punishment: A negative consequence imposed by others in response to a behavior. Being required to shell out one sixth of your income for the next eighteen [or twenty one; or twenty five] years is indeed a punishment; it is a negative consequence, it is imposed by others, and it is a response to a particular behavior, namely that of biological reproduction unaccompanied by legal custody of a child.

It's not a punishment. It may be a negative consequence, but it's absolutely not a punishment. The fact that I have to pay interests on my loans is a negative consequence I suffer, but it's not a punishment.

For it to be a punishment, it has to be imposed on a person who has violated a law, rule, or other norm. None of those apply here.

Of course, if you're using the colloquial definition of punishment, then reading your post was a punishment as well.

However, it meets all the conditions required for it to be called, accurately, a punishment for having sex.

Not at all.

[Qanchia]

Can someone justify child support to me AT ALL?

A child is entitled to support from both its parents. If one parent isn't present and doesn't participate in the day-to-day care and (more direct) support of the child, he or she has a duty to meet his or her obligations through providing economic support to the child.

That missing parent should have the right to get rid of those obligations unilaterally (through abortion or adoption) just like the custodial parent does.

[Greed and Death]

The child isn't entitled, that much is obvious, or else it would be a crime for a parent NOT to sue for child support, or to refuse to divulge the identity of the other parent, while plenty either do not sue for child support or give the identity. If it were the CHILDS entitlement, this would mean they have broken the law.
Would you like to try again.

Child neglect/abandonment is an actual crime you can go to prison for. If you don't want to take care of a child, you need to go process the child into the adoption system to ensure he is being taken care of.

Or abandon them at a baby Moses drop off site.

some states even allow teenagers to be dropped off, I often go to the sites to adopt a teenage girl or two.

[Gravlen]

A child is entitled to support from both its parents. If one parent isn't present and doesn't participate in the day-to-day care and (more direct) support of the child, he or she has a duty to meet his or her obligations through providing economic support to the child.

That missing parent should have the right to get rid of those obligations unilaterally (through abortion or adoption) just like the custodial parent does.

The custodial parent doesn't have such rights. (At least, not 'round these parts)

[Tahar Joblis]

Punishment: A negative consequence imposed by others in response to a behavior. Being required to shell out one sixth of your income for the next eighteen [or twenty one; or twenty five] years is indeed a punishment; it is a negative consequence, it is imposed by others, and it is a response to a particular behavior, namely that of biological reproduction unaccompanied by legal custody of a child.

It's not a punishment. It may be a negative consequence, but it's absolutely not a punishment. The fact that I have to pay interests on my loans is a negative consequence I suffer, but it's not a punishment.

It's not a punishment because you agreed to it. Explicitly. You said "Hey, I'll get money now and pay it back with interest later." Quid pro quo. This is not the case with sex; sex is not consent to marriage, pregnancy, childbirth, or raising children. [If it was, abortion would still be illegal in most of the US.]

Now, if your bank jerks your rate around, or levies fines on you, it is punishing you if it does so in response to what you're doing.

For it to be a punishment, it has to be imposed on a person who has violated a law, rule, or other norm. None of those apply here.

Sure they do. It's a social norm to reproduce only within a stable marriage.

The custodial parent doesn't have such rights. (At least, not 'round these parts)

The vast majority of countries do give a single mother such a right, either de facto or de jure; in most cases, such is written into law [e.g., in France, UK, United States, etc].

[Tahar Joblis]

Punishment: A negative consequence imposed by others in response to a behavior. Being required to shell out one sixth of your income for the next eighteen [or twenty one; or twenty five] years is indeed a punishment; it is a negative consequence, it is imposed by others, and it is a response to a particular behavior, namely that of biological reproduction unaccompanied by legal custody of a child.

For having sex: For men, "having sex" is sufficient behavior to result in the punishment above. No other action is required in order for a man to receive the above punishment.

Child support, as currently practiced, is indeed a punishment for having sex. That is not necessarily all it is; it is also, for example, an instrument of class warfare and helps maintain the low socioeconomic status for black Americans [particularly in conjunction with the stacked legal system]. However, it meets all the conditions required for it to be called, accurately, a punishment for having sex.

By that same argument, therefore, income taxes (in the UK at least) are punishments for turning 18.

Turning eighteen isn't a behavior.

Some people do view the tax system - particularly certain parts of it - to be punitive in nature. This is a fairly apt description when it comes to "sin taxes" on booze, which have traditionally been levied in an attempt to conduct social engineering.

[Salandriagado]

By that same argument, therefore, income taxes (in the UK at least) are punishments for turning 18.

Turning eighteen isn't a behavior.

Some people do view the tax system - particularly certain parts of it - to be punitive in nature. This is a fairly apt description when it comes to "sin taxes" on booze, which have traditionally been levied in an attempt to conduct social engineering.

OK, we'll call it a punishment on earning income, which is certainly a behaviour.

[Gravlen]

It's not a punishment. It may be a negative consequence, but it's absolutely not a punishment. The fact that I have to pay interests on my loans is a negative consequence I suffer, but it's not a punishment.

It's not a punishment because you agreed to it. Explicitly. You said "Hey, I'll get money now and pay it back with interest later." Quid pro quo.

If you want to keep up the intellectually dishonest argument, then sure it is a punishment even then. Doesn't matter that you agreed to it, it's a negative consequence you suffer even if you change your mind when you see what you have to repay, and refuse to consent to further interest payments.

The argument that child support is a punishment might sound good when you're whipping up a frenzy among your local Men's Rights Activists, but it remains as untrue as the claim that income tax is theft.

This is not the case with sex; sex is not consent to marriage, pregnancy, childbirth, or raising children. [If it was, abortion would still be illegal in most of the US.]

Irrelevant. Childbirth is not contingent upon consent to happen.

Now, if your bank jerks your rate around, [...] it is punishing you if it does so in response to what you're doing.

You've lost track of your own argument, haven't you.

Sure they do. It's a social norm to reproduce only within a stable marriage.

I feel bad for you, having to live in such a society - where, apparently, people who live with their partners and children but aren't married are levied punishments. You rightly feel bad when millions of parents are forced to pay child support while actually living with and supporting their children at the same time. No doubt they face prison time for unlawful cohabitation too?

The vast majority of countries do give a single mother such a right, either de facto or de jure; in most cases, such is written into law [e.g., in France, UK, United States, etc].

Of course, your claim leaves something to be desired when you use examples that are verifiably wrong.

[Galloism]

if the rapist is the woman and the victim is the father, there ya go.

That's one variant. The other is if the rapist is a man, and the woman decides to carry the child to term anyway.

Regardless, the thread is about, in general, a rape victim being obligated to pay support for the child conceived during rape. Now, admittedly, if the rape victim is a woman, it's less likely to REACH that point, but it's entirely possible the victim could have moral, ethical, or relgious reasons to not abort.

Regardless of how it happens, my objection is this. Child custody is awarded to whomever the court feels should have custody, based on the needs of the child. The non custodial parent typically pays support.

In what court in this country would a jduge decide that the best interests of the child are best served by being in the custody of a rapist?

Forget gender dynamics, when does this ACTUALLY happen?

Probably more commonly than we would like to admit.

You've got to remember that, based on statistics by the CDC, approximately 40% of rapes (probably) are female-on-male rapes.

Meanwhile, as a society, we view claiming a case of female on male rape approximately equal to claiming to have seen Bigfoot, due to bad a statistics and misinformation.

We also, as a society, generally give default physical custody to women when birth is given out of wedlock.

By default, in a female-on-male rape situation, we do not believe the male rape victim, and, if it results in child, we give the child to the rapist.

Badabing. It's probably more common than any of us would like.

[Risottia]

This.

Also, I would question the idea that a rapist gets to keep and raise a kid. I fail to see how being raised and educated by a rapist would be in the best interest of a minor.

Alleged rapist I gather.

Yup, I was speaking generally though.
There's no rapist until a trial says so.

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

If somebody commits rape, and it results in a child, damn right they should be required to pay child support. They did not consider the woman's rights did they now? Why should ANYBODY worry about theirs?

I completely agree.

[Galloism]

If somebody commits rape, and it results in a child, damn right they should be required to pay child support. They did not consider the woman's rights did they now? Why should ANYBODY worry about theirs?

I completely agree.

You both couldn't read?

[Krownsinburg]

Welfare? How Socialist.

The Government should not have to care for it's people, the people should be able to care for themselves, those who work hard enough gain riches, that's what Capitalism teaches us.

[Forsher]

I do not feel that it is reasonable to force someone support a child they cannot be any way held responsible for.

I do not feel that it is reasonable in any way to force a child to grow up with a parent who is a rapist. (Actually, I believe I have gone as far to say that the rapist parent should never get to see their child... ever, unless of course the child decides it should be so.)

I do feel that it is entirely reasonable that the state should cover what would otherwise have been paid for by the non-custodial parent. (And of course the rapist parent must continue to support the child via the state... I feel it is a more effective punishment than stopping at forbidden access.)

If both parents are rapists... to the state.

[Great Nepal]

An indivudal who did not consent in birth of the child, should not be forced to pay for welfare of the child. That is responsibility of person who consented (in this case the rapist).

[Feldsworth]

anyone who thinks welfare programs are adaquite, has obviously never been on one.

I wish to make them more adequate. I'm rather to the left of most in the US.

I'm far left as well, but ya know, waaaaaaay too many people live off of Welfare who don't deserve it. In the words of JFK (I believe it was....), do not ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Yes, some people do need it, but we need stricter regulation on it. Only the physically or mentally impaired.
Any able body should actually get off their lazy @$z and actually do something with their lives besides be a leech to everyone else. It's getting to where half the working people's income is going to support someone who can get a job, just doesn't want to work for a living.

But, regarding the topic, I find that this is in no way wrong, for the same reason as Coccygia.
Proof, though, should be absolutely required.

[Ostroeuropa]

The debate over healthcare in america was rife with Anglophobia in regards to their discussion of the NHS, it was regularly implied that the British were callous monsters who euthanized all the disabled, poor, and old, which simply isn't true.
We only euthanize the really annoying ones.

[Ifreann]

The debate over healthcare in america was rife with Anglophobia in regards to their discussion of the NHS, it was regularly implied that the British were callous monsters who euthanized all the disabled, poor, and old, which simply isn't true.
We only euthanize the really annoying ones.

And it's less "euthanise" and more "move to a home with substandard care standards and let nature take its course"

[Ostroeuropa]

Posted that in the wrong thread by the way