Rape by Deception

[Vassenor]

...This is coming back to "trans people must disclose their entire medical history or they're rapists".

[Proctopeo]

He should not have parenthood, legal and social, forced upon him because he was raped. That's disgusting.

The man's consent or lack thereof doesn't abrogate the right of his child to be cared for.

And that responsibility should fall to the woman and her SO, or if they are deemed not capable of parenthood (which should be likely, cause, you know, she's a rapist...), a foster or adoptive parent.
If and only if he wants to take up the responsibility, should he. And he definitely shouldn't be forced to interact with or fund his rapist.

[SD_Film Artists]

I dunno about rape, but Fraud certainly. The victim is entitled to damages from the harm caused by the fraud.

I agree, 'rape by deception' sounds like it could be a very slippery slope; what if a women says she's on the pill when she isn't? Could it be extended to other expectations such as the person's wealth or nationality? The person who lied is not a violent sex offender but they are guilty of causing the victim to lose a lot of money and time through deception; so it's fraud. The fraudster should pay child support as well as extra compensation for the fraud itself. Perhaps call it a different catagory of rape? Like how there's already rape and statutory rape.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, if it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Nonsense. People will always make up arbitrary standards. I would say that consenting to sex on the condition that contraception be used, followed by the woman not using that contraception, means the child isn't his. He disowned it before it existed. And thereby has no rights as a father, nor duties as a father.

Much like a Sperm donor is not considered the father of a child legally.

Perhaps even open up to charges of theft? Intellectual property violations? Not sure. She's using material she has no right to to create something she shouldn't be.

This logic also applies even if there was no deception, because the man "disowns" his child before it's born. This is just an extension of intellectual abortion rights to men.

Also, tbh, in an ideal world, sperm donation would not be a thing.

[The Emerald Legion]

Nonsense. People will always make up arbitrary standards. I would say that consenting to sex on the condition that contraception be used, followed by the woman not using that contraception, means the child isn't his. He disowned it before it existed. And thereby has no rights as a father, nor duties as a father.

Much like a Sperm donor is not considered the father of a child legally.

Perhaps even open up to charges of theft? Intellectual property violations? Not sure. She's using material she has no right to to create something she shouldn't be.

This logic also applies even if there was no deception, because the man "disowns" his child before it's born. This is just an extension of intellectual abortion rights to men.

I don't see an issue with that. Even if a child has a right to care, it doesn't have a right to a specific persons care. Orphanages are a thing and should be better funded. Then again I also once argued orphanages should be mandatory.

[United Muscovite Nations]

This logic also applies even if there was no deception, because the man "disowns" his child before it's born. This is just an extension of intellectual abortion rights to men.

I don't see an issue with that. Even if a child has a right to care, it doesn't have a right to a specific persons care. Orphanages are a thing and should be better funded. Then again I also once argued orphanages should be mandatory.

Orphanages are one thing, but a parent still has the duty to care for the child until custody is transferred.

[Andsed]

Bullshit. Getting someone is pregnant by accident through consensual sex is in no way similar to being raped and the woman who raped you getting pregnant.

For years we've listened to people tell us that consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy to justify abortion. Some consistency would be nice.

Uh no. When you have unprotected sex with someone you did not consent to pregnancy but if it does happen and you choose to carry out the birth you were not forced into anything and thus you chose to be a parent. If you were raped you were forced into having a child and did not get a choice. Huge difference there. Forcing someone who was raped to care for a child that they never had a choice in conceiving is completely immoral. If that person chooses to help then that is one thing but forcing them against their will to do so is unjustifiable.

[United Muscovite Nations]

For years we've listened to people tell us that consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy to justify abortion. Some consistency would be nice.

Uh no. When you have unprotected sex with someone you did not consent to pregnancy but if it does happen and you choose to carry out the birth you were not forced into anything and thus you chose to be a parent. If you were raped you were forced into having a child and did not get a choice. Huge difference there. Forcing someone who was raped to care for a child that they never had a choice in conceiving is completely immoral. If that person chooses to help then that is one thing but forcing them against their will to do so is unjustifiable.

The underlined statements are explicitly contradictory. For one, it implies that consent to one thing is a consent to all of the potential consequences of that thing.

[Andsed]

Uh no. When you have unprotected sex with someone you did not consent to pregnancy but if it does happen and you choose to carry out the birth you were not forced into anything and thus you chose to be a parent. If you were raped you were forced into having a child and did not get a choice. Huge difference there. Forcing someone who was raped to care for a child that they never had a choice in conceiving is completely immoral. If that person chooses to help then that is one thing but forcing them against their will to do so is unjustifiable.

The underlined statements are explicitly contradictory. For one, it implies that consent to one thing is a consent to all of the potential consequences of that thing.

Nope. By choosing to carry out the pregnancy that resulted from consensual sex you did choose to have the child. You did not consent to a child when you chose to had sex you just decided to with it when it came up. When your raped you never got a choice since you can not force the women to get an abortion.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The underlined statements are explicitly contradictory. For one, it implies that consent to one thing is a consent to all of the potential consequences of that thing.

Nope. By choosing to carry out the pregnancy that resulted from consensual sex you did choose to have the child. You did not consent to a child when you chose to had sex you just decided to with it when it came up. When your raped you never got a choice since you can not force the women to get an abortion.

You explicitly said they did not consent to the pregnancy. You are now contradicting the entire premise by saying they did choose to carry out the pregnancy.

[SD_Film Artists]

Nope. By choosing to carry out the pregnancy that resulted from consensual sex you did choose to have the child. You did not consent to a child when you chose to had sex you just decided to with it when it came up. When your raped you never got a choice since you can not force the women to get an abortion.

You explicitly said they did not consent to the pregnancy. You are now contradicting the entire premise by saying they did choose to carry out the pregnancy.

I think they meant 'chose to carry out the pregnancy *after* the sex where they earlier didn't consent to pregnancy.'

[Andsed]

Nope. By choosing to carry out the pregnancy that resulted from consensual sex you did choose to have the child. You did not consent to a child when you chose to had sex you just decided to with it when it came up. When your raped you never got a choice since you can not force the women to get an abortion.

You explicitly said they did not consent to the pregnancy. You are now contradicting the entire premise by saying they did choose to carry out the pregnancy.

No I did not. I said they did not consent to the pregnancy when they chose to have sex. They just decided to go with it instead of aborting. Choosing to go with it once it comes up does not mean they consented to it when they were having sex. Just that they decided they were going to carry it out. When your raped you never get that choice. it is entirely the women who raped you´s choice which is why it is unjustifiable to force someone to care for a child they had no say in conceiving.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You explicitly said they did not consent to the pregnancy. You are now contradicting the entire premise by saying they did choose to carry out the pregnancy.

I think they meant 'chose to carry out the pregnancy *after* the sex where they earlier didn't consent to pregnancy.'

Yeah, that's not the premise. The basis of the question is the hypothetical situation where a man accidentally gets a woman pregnant (with no deception) and then doesn't accept his fatherhood.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You explicitly said they did not consent to the pregnancy. You are now contradicting the entire premise by saying they did choose to carry out the pregnancy.

No I did not. I said they did not consent to the pregnancy when they chose to have sex. They just decided to go with it instead of aborting. Choosing to go with it once it comes up does not mean they consented to it when they were having sex. Just that they decided they were going to carry it out. When your raped you never get that choice. it is entirely the women who raped you´s choice which is why it is unjustifiable to force someone to care for a child they had no say in conceiving.

So then we're back to my question: if a man accidentally gets a woman pregnant, with no deception, your argument can still be used to say that he doesn't have to pay child support.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I dunno about rape, but Fraud certainly. The victim is entitled to damages from the harm caused by the fraud.

This

[The New California Republic]

I'd say it straddles the line of rape but I'm not 100% sold on it being sufficiently of the same form to fully qualify.


Why?

Because all parents have a duty to care for their children to the best of their ability.

Tying the victim to their rapist via proxy of the child is abhorrent.

[Dogmeat]

I dunno about rape, but Fraud certainly. The victim is entitled to damages from the harm caused by the fraud.

This.

[Cekoviu]

...This is coming back to "trans people must disclose their entire medical history or they're rapists".

Did anybody even mention that or is this just typical Vassposting?

[Vassenor]

...This is coming back to "trans people must disclose their entire medical history or they're rapists".

Did anybody even mention that or is this just typical Vassposting?

It's come up on the forum before, with the logic being "I don't consent to sex with trans people and so if you do not disclose this to me unrequested then you have raped me".

[Proctopeo]

...This is coming back to "trans people must disclose their entire medical history or they're rapists".

Did anybody even mention that or is this just typical Vassposting?

Nobody even made a passing reference to it before Vass's post, and it likely would've stayed that way if it weren't for said post.

Did anybody even mention that or is this just typical Vassposting?

It's come up on the forum before, with the logic being "I don't consent to sex with trans people and so if you do not disclose this to me unrequested then you have raped me".

I feel as if you're purposefully misrepresenting an actual, honest argument someone made once.

[The Emerald Legion]

I don't see an issue with that. Even if a child has a right to care, it doesn't have a right to a specific persons care. Orphanages are a thing and should be better funded. Then again I also once argued orphanages should be mandatory.

Orphanages are one thing, but a parent still has the duty to care for the child until custody is transferred.

In this case the 'parent' never claimed and explicitly denied custody prior to the child's conception.

There is no custody to transfer because they never had it.

[USS Monitor]

I would argue that even if lying to get in someone's pants is considered a crime, it should not be classified as rape. Same way fraud is not the same as burglary.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Orphanages are one thing, but a parent still has the duty to care for the child until custody is transferred.

In this case the 'parent' never claimed and explicitly denied custody prior to the child's conception.

There is no custody to transfer because they never had it.

Then that also applies to men who weren't raped.

[USS Monitor]

Did anybody even mention that or is this just typical Vassposting?

It's come up on the forum before, with the logic being "I don't consent to sex with trans people and so if you do not disclose this to me unrequested then you have raped me".

There's a difference between not talking about something vs. talking about it and lying.

If someone can't tell you're trans and doesn't ask, that's on them. How were you supposed to know it was a problem?

But if they ask and you lie, that's on you.

[USS Monitor]

It's come up on the forum before, with the logic being "I don't consent to sex with trans people and so if you do not disclose this to me unrequested then you have raped me".

I feel as if you're purposefully misrepresenting an actual, honest argument someone made once.

More like dragging in some transphobic bullshit that was actually said somewhere, but has nothing to do with the topic.

OP of this thread is clearly talking about lying, not just failure to mind-read.