BABY DADDY

[Duchess]

Do men who have raped the mother have a right to the child who was born out of the rape even though he may be paying child support? I'm thinking only of your opinion, not of any of the legalities involved, simply your personal opinion.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

No, I don't think so. I have a hard time coming up with why the asshole would not be incarcerated and therefore able to pay child support. I know how that happens but I sure as hell don't like it

[Carsman]

A rapist is a wild animal, and wild animals don't have rights! The End.

[BlueTiki]

Men shouldn't have to pay child support for children.

It's a woman's body . . . her right to choose if she is having a child or terminating the pregnancy.

If a man cannot stop a pregnancy . . . no child support.

As he has no rights over a woman's body, there should be no financial consequence.

No payment from a man . . . no right to the kid.

Women can't have it both ways.

Your choice, your burden.

Time to reap the the benefits of "a woman's right to choose".

[HairOfTheDog]

If you really don't think men should have to pay child support if the women they impregnate by consensual sex refuse to have abortions, I disagree with you Tiki (unless there is evidence of fraud by the women). But, fair enough.

I think men should be legally responsible for contributing to their children's support and should have access to those children (unless both parents agree otherwise on either point).

Likewise, if an impregnated woman doesn't want to have the child but the man feels strongly against abortion and he gets his way, I think the woman should be legally responsible for contributing to the child's support and should have access to the child (unless both parents agree otherwise on either point).

But, suggesting that a woman who is raped and chooses not to have an abortion (due to moral, religious, health or other factors) should have no option for child support from the rapist and that the rapist is a victim of male exploitation....that's some backwards batshit bullshit, in my opinion.

I think the convicted rapist should have to pay child support and I think it should be up to the woman whether he has access to the child (assuming the law doesn't forbid him from such contact).

If the convicted rapist wants to make a case for gaining access to the child against the woman's wishes, then that legal option should be open to him, in my opinion, even though I don't like it. In such cases, I think it should be extremely difficult to convince a judge that a violent, serial, or incestuous rapist should be granted access (as opposed to a man who was convicted of statutory rape of his 16 year old girlfriend when he was 18 years old, for example). But, some judges are idiots and misogynists, so I don't doubt that some women and children are harmed by judges granting rapists access when they shouldn't.

[sally]

It depends on the case, statutory rape would obviously be different from some guy who breaks into a woman's house and violently rapes her. That guy shouldn't have any right to the child and shouldn't be around children period.

[HairOfTheDog]

It depends on the case, statutory rape would obviously be different from some guy who breaks into a woman's house and violently rapes her. That guy shouldn't have any right to the child and shouldn't be around children period.

I agree.

There might be a couple of other exceptions, but not many.

Maybe a man convicted of violently raping his girlfriend because he had PTSD and was off his meds should have the opportunity to make a case for supervised access, IF he's proven to be consistently stable since. Something like that.

But, even then, I can understand how the woman/mother would object and be nervous about it.

[sally]

I think girlfriend or wives or statutory rape are all gray areas and it would depend, but a guy that just goes out and rapes a random woman should go to jail for a very long time. Never mind child support or visitation of the child they fathered, they should be fed to the lions.

[HairOfTheDog]

I didn't know much about this issue before.

This piece has some interviews with women going through the trauma of having to co-parent with their rapists, as well as a brush of the legal issues.

Snip:
There are 15 states** in the U.S. that have no law in place to terminate a rapist's parental rights.

Of the 35 states and the District of Columbia that have laws in place, 24 require that a parent be convicted of rape before their parental rights be considered for termination.

"For the subset of states that don't require a criminal conviction, they require 'clear and convincing evidence' of a rape conception. It's an enormously high standard of proof; it's the standard of proof that has been endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court," attorney Shauna Prewitt told InsideEdition.com.

Many states also include carve-outs that make exceptions in certain instances, such as cases that are classified as statutory rape, said Prewitt, who faced her own alleged rapist in court when he tried to seek custody of the child conceived during the assault.

"All this stems from the Constitution of the United States, the 14^th Amendment. The Supreme Court has read into that amendment that an individual has a fundamental right to parent," Prewitt said.

"It's a very important constitutional right and because of that, the Supreme Court has said that states can't interfere with a fundamental right unless they have clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit. It's up to every state to determine what an unfit parent is," she said.

But that determination does not always take into consideration the approximately 25,000 to 32,000 women who become pregnant through rape in the U.S. each year and those who choose to raise the children, advocates say.

Prewitt said that when a court typically determines what is in the best interest of a child when considering terminating parental rights, it looks at whether the child was hurt directly.

"Whereas in these cases, rape conception cases, the child is often being hurt indirectly," Prewitt continued.

More: http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/1...-attackers

[blueberryhill]

You all make some valid points, but I think rapists belong in jail, and reproductive rights should remain within the family bedroom or wherever you choose if it is consensual.....The Government has not dang business interfering with reproductive issues...Again, that is between a woman and her Physician.....Who supports that child is when Gov't should insert itself to ensure that child is supported....because the act of being born does not insure someone is going to support you......

Yeah, some females choose to give birth even though father doesn't want the child and guys have no control over that decision.....fair.....maybe not, but birth control is a two way street. Some guys will get played......but I think far more women/girls have been played and end up as single mothers without child support. Ideally, both parents will make the decision. If not, I don't think that entitles the guy to a "free" ride re a child he helped create, if a woman chooses to have the baby.

As long as women provide the oven for the baby and the guy provides the baster, it will be the woman who makes final decision on having baby. Again, it may not be fair, but unless you have a uterus, you don't get to make the final decision....