Should male victims of female rapists be allowed to fiancially abort in the event of a pregnancy?

Okay here, we have two cases, both of which I acknowledge are unjust to the fathers. The children nevertheless need to be supported, which is probably why the courts decided the way they did. Since the local participants keep using the phrase "financial abortion," I presume they would rather the children had been euthanized or turned out on the streets.

Now let's compare these two cases to overall child support statistics. According to a report released by the U.S. Census Bureau in November, 2009:

In 2007, 54% of the 13.7 million custodial parents in the U.S. had some type of child support agreement in place. Just about half of these, 27.3% of the custodial parents sought the government’s help in collecting that child support.

The total amount of child support money owed that year was $34.1 billion dollars; the average amount was $5,350 per. However, only 62.7% of that money -- an average of $3,354 --was received. This works out to about $280 per month.

Among the 7.8 million custodial single parents who were awarded child support in 2007, only 46.8% received all of the child support money that was due. Another 29.5% of custodial parents received some of the money that was due, and 23.7% received none of the child support money due.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say there's no parity. On the one hand, we have two fathers who had an inadequate amount of say in the begetting of their children being required to support them. On the other hand, we have 3,650,400 parents (the vast majority of whom are men) paying their child support, 2,301,000 paying only part of it, and 1,848,600 skipping out on it entirely.

Is it hypocrisy and one-sided politics to talk about this problem in terms of biological parents (mostly men) defaulting on support? It is not. But it could very easily be taken to mean that a phenomenon with a rate of occurrence of less than one per 924,300 is not entitled to 50% of the airtime, the effort, or the concern.

Truely sometimes the people who make the laws are retarded.

If it was up too me that women woulld be behind bars for atleast 10years for what she did. She shouldnt be having sex with a 14year old at 27 thats disgusting.

He shouldnt have too pay a dime. i Mean what kind of women is she first sleeping with a minor, and then trying too get child support too.

Personally yes i think if a guy is raped he should be able too abort that child. Since he hasnt given his concent and anything that comes from the initial forced contribution is theirby void.

Its whats done with other crimes, for instance anything that a drug dealer gains due too profit from his illegal actions is confiscated.

If anything she should pay him, since sexual abuse of a young child can have long lasting mental and life long implications.

What makes its worse is that he's only 14, barely hitting puberty and still very much a kid.

its just another example of some of the lunacy that goes on in the american justice system at times.

Reminds me of the documentary i watched where a women shot her husband, and while awaiting trial she moved too canada with his children, and it took forever too get the trial sorted and her sent back, and the judges were saying it was too late too put her on trial now, due too delays they themselves had caused and eventually after about 2years of the grandparents fight too try and get her tried and get the child put somewhere safe from her, she decided too kill herself and the child.

So due too the failure of the system time and time again the grandparents not only lost their son too her they lost their grandchild too. And the whole time that she was alive they had too be nice too the women that killed their son just so they could see their grandchild.

Sometimes the system sickens me.

However i should Add the women in your case is An evil women who is clearly and pedophile and sick and should be treated as such, And she is a very rare case, Most women wouldnt dream of doing what she did or acting how she has.

I'll add that while yes by taking away the child from the mother may deprive the child of her mother. What kind of mother is a pedophile going too be ? You cant let a pedophile raise a child thats rediculus.

I know some people think that if a man gets hard then even if he says no its a yes, But thats not true its something that cant be helped you cant stop yourself getting one. If its done against their will, or by an adult too a child its rape no matter the gender of the victim.

Personally i am finding it hard too even understand why this 27 year old women wanted too sleep with a 14 year old, and why she thought it was okay. She should be behind bars and kept away from all children for life like all pedophiles especially her child.

To the below poster, The rarity of a case doesnt make justice any less important. Everyone should get justice no matter how rare their case is, You cant think oh well it doesnt happen very often soo who cares lets just leave them get screwed over.

The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called "child molestation," is typically treated as a more serious crime.

We're speaking of guys who're past puberty, a minor who is, I emphasize... sexually mature...

I hope you don't mind me asking...but are these cases tried and proven as ''statutory rape'', or is it an assumption you've made?

Many courts around the world have... often over-looked these cases though, as there are genuine cases of female-male statutory rape... for these cases are assumed as a sexual initiation by the younger male...

And as unfair as it is, though the male remains the victim in the case... it is the female who decided whether or not, the child/fetus lives (though if the mental state of the mother is highly doubted, the fetus would either be aborted, or given for adoption, leaving the victim free of the responsibility)

The state of the child remains on the weight of the case... and whether or not the attacker is prosecuted...

But logically, I believe the law was created... with the welfare child in mind, rather than the parent. Equal responsibility should be taken upon the creation of another being, whether it be ''accident'' or otherwise... the mother of the child, no matter how, has to pay for the child, one way or the other, in order for the child to live comfortably, and the least a father could do is to pay child support.

Out of curiosity, I've read a couple of cases, among them the cases on Pamela Smart and Mary Kay Letourneau, where the victim and the aggressor had a relationship... before deciding to go further...

The conclusion... all laws are man-made... and unfortunately one-sided at some points... and in this case... the true victim... is the child.

Cheers!!!

No victim of crime should be held responsible in any way for any outcome of that crime. To even suggest otherwise is insane (not that I'm saying YOU are suggesting that).

that also applies to civil issues, which includes child support.

In a civil action for, say wrongful death (see OJ), all sort of things can be allowed as claims from the VICTIM'S side - there is no provision for the PERPETRATOR (I'll get back to OJ's 'not guilty' verdict) to claim against the victim.

OJ was found 'not guilty' under the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' - this did not cut out civil actions succeeding under the civil standard of 'balance of probabilities', i.e. 51% or more.

This situation you describe could only happen under the circumstances as you describe - a feminist regime of blatant insanity, discrimination and injustice.

This is probably the most interesting question I have heard all night, and I bet you'll get lots of opinions. I am for women's rights, but that does not mean that I am against men's. These stories you are sharing make me very sad. While some people say it is impossible for a woman to rape a man, sadly it happens, and I hate to hear about what happened to these kids. Hell no, they should not have to pay child-support. They are kids and are legally victims of sexual assault for Christ's sake. The women, if found guilty of statutory rape, should not be allowed to demand money from their victims; they should be in jail.

Absolutely. At the same time, they should be offered the option to financially support the child if they choose to do so, but this is a situation where I say the government should absolutely step in and cover whatever money is needed to help raise the child. Impregnating a woman wasn't the guy's fault in this situation.

I'm not going to get into the statutory rape aspect of this question, I'm just going to give my opinion on financial abortion...

I don't like the term "financial abortion", I think it is a crude and spiteful term, I find it a little bit embarrassing to even hear. Perhaps "forfeiting parental rights and responsibilities" is a better term. I don't see why men cannot have a choice if women have choices. Men should know that even if they successfully "financially abort" and avoid child support, the child may come looking for them in the future, to learn about their paternal history and maybe to develop a connection or relationship with their bio father. So they are still biologically someone's father even if they forfeit their rights... similar story with biological parents who gave their children up for adoption. Some children even go looking for anonymous sperm donors who fathered them. In that sense a financial abortion is nothing like an actual abortion... a child that is aborted can never come back trying to look for you.

I think both abortion and "financial abortion" is selfish, corrupt and debase, if men want to be as criminal and egotistic as women are when they choose abortion, they should have that choice.

I'm not sure about abortions I'm against violating anyones bodily integrity and choice except in the most extreme circumstances. I'm against the rapists on this ground too. I think that these women should be stripped of their gaurdianship rights but that means the child may have to spend their life being orphaned.It doesn't seem like a good life to give someone.

Uh...YEAH! They're just kids and they were raped. It's completely messed up to make them pay child support. That's the male equivalent of forcing a woman to keep a baby after she was raped! I don't know what these judges were thinking when they made rape victims pay child support.

For rape, no of course not. Statutory rape I'm on the fence about, I'm not sure why I just feel that way

Those young boys,who were children and victims of female pedophiles should not have to pay one dime in child support. It's a revolting thought that people see nothing wrong with that at all. I despise people who take advantage of children.

Edit-Why are women who revealed themselves to be pedophiles even allowed to keep their children anyway? They should never be around another kid.

What I think should happen is,custody of the children should be given to the young fathers while the pedophiles pay child support. It's only fair.