should a rapist have legal rights to his child?

Rosie - posted on 12/02/2010 ( 29 moms have responded )

8,657

30

321

we've been having discussions about abortion on a different forum and it got me thinking a bit about whether a rapist should have legal rights to a child produced from his rape. should he have to consent before a woman gives up the child for adoption, and if she chooses to keep and raise the child should he have rights to his child-partial custody, paying child support, so forth? i'm not sure how i feel on this so i want to see some compelling arguments here ladies!! :)

This conversation has been closed to further comments

29 Comments

View replies by

Tara - posted on 12/03/2010

2,567

14

114

Not under any circumstances. The victim should be protected at all costs as should her child if she chooses to keep it. And no he should not have to consent for her to give that baby up.
Never in a million years.

La - posted on 12/03/2010

0

0

63

Rapists and pedophiles are not people...they bleed cold viscous black blood. True story.

Tah - posted on 12/03/2010

7,412

22

400

well isn't that a bold rapist to show up and say, hey and btw..i wanna see my son....

@Sharon..that is to crazy to be real...so because she didn't abort..she was okay with the incident...and that judge is the reason some women don't report or press charges, because she is put on trial and to make her see this man everyday....is cruel and unusual punishment...

Tracey - posted on 12/03/2010

1,094

2

58

I thought all rape victims were given the morning after pill as part of their medical exam to ensure this does not happen.
From another point of view if you were the rapist's child and adopted how would you feel if you decided to find your biological parents and found out the circumstances of your conception?

Sharon - posted on 12/02/2010

11,585

12

1315

No. Not just no, but HELL NO.

I read some of the arguments that say the courts should recognise that he is the parent but declare him a danger.

YOU CAN'T. In a real life case this was argued and the rapist won because he raped an adult woman, NOT A CHILD. He was no danger to the child, the court said. But what the hell? Lets just subject the victim/mother to him on a regular basis, she wasn't tortured enough right? The court said "obviously she wasn't disturbed enough by the incident (they refused to call it rape) because she went through with the pregnancy and was going to keep the baby.

I WISH I were making this up. I also wish I knew how to find this case.

They can't just declare him "unsafe". there needs to be a different law? written/set up, that makes sure a rapist NEVER sees a single benefit from his crime. Oh and I can see that it could be argued that raising a child isn't a "benefit" but an obligation or some crazy ass shit.

[deleted account]

As I said on this post in the other board.... I can't really answer this one. I will say NO for most circumstances though. Can't really answer for ALL circumstances considering what my circumstances were/are.....

Bonnie - posted on 12/02/2010

4,813

22

262

I think it depends on the situation because honestly, if this women doesn't know the man from Adam, he rapes her and she gets pregnant, he would probably never even find out...unless he stalks her.

Amanda - posted on 12/02/2010

668

16

37

I would say hell no! I know for a fact that if I were to get raped and end up pregnant(God forbid!) I would want to give the child up for adoption, and his opinion on that can kiss my ass!! Sorry about my language but that sick son of a bitch can rot in prison and die! Wow that was harsh! I'm sick right now and being a sahm and inhome daycare provider I don't get to rest....Sorry for the angry post but I dislike this topic so much it just gets to me..but I'll end this with a NO! :)

C. - posted on 12/02/2010

4,125

35

242

But then that would be wrongly accusing someone and if they are found to be lying about it, I THINK they can get in trouble..

Isobel - posted on 12/02/2010

9,849

0

286

But then, couldn't any woman who didn't want the father to have anything to do with her child say that she was raped? I suppose that's why it's not law.

C. - posted on 12/02/2010

4,125

35

242

Eh.. No. Who's to say he won't try and do anything to his child? BUT.. The whole child support thing.. Yes, he should have to pay. He's the one that raped the girl and created a human being. So yes on that.

[deleted account]

And the situation I have been giving my opinion on is true rape, not trickery or lying on a woman's part. If a woman is raped and gets pregnant, the man should have zero say in what happens at all to that baby. Abortion, adoption or if she keeps it. I do agree with Caitlin on the financial point though. He definitely should have to help financially. Although, to do that, I would think that paternity would have to be established. There should be a law that says "Ok, he's been convicted of raping this woman, resulting in a baby. DNA shows it is his baby biologically. All paternal rights have been stripped and he shall have to make restitution to the mother and child for XX number of years."

[deleted account]

I agree Hannah, non-entity from the moment of the rape.



Edited to add: Hannah, I edit all the time. Always that lingering, loose end thought that I forget to add. Or I have to fix my grammar lol

Caitlin - posted on 12/02/2010

1,915

5

172

It's one of those he said she said scenarios unfortunately, but I find that the legal system unfortunately gives women the benefit of the doubt too often, and tend to think of the man as always being the bad guy... I wish there was a way to prove it!

Isobel - posted on 12/02/2010

9,849

0

286

I know a woman who had her first at 15 years old with a 27 year old man...(statutory rape) and he won custody in court. :(

Hannah - posted on 12/02/2010

91

0

3

Believe me, I completely agree with you and know that it happens often. I am just wondering how you would prove that.

Caitlin - posted on 12/02/2010

1,915

5

172

Well, it's the same discussion really for a one night stand that a woman regrets afterwards and claims was rape.. You just have to investigate.. The woman isn't always the victim..

Jessica - posted on 12/02/2010

986

20

64

Ew I agree, he should have no rights to his child at all. Not even sure how one could argue that he should?

Caitlin - posted on 12/02/2010

1,915

5

172

*Copied from my post int he other thread*



Tricky one... Umm, I say yes, he should be recognized as the father of the child, and the legal system should step in, declare him a potential danger to the child and bar him from seeing the child and then milk him for as much child support as they can get from him, deducted at source from his paycheck by the courts. If the woman decides to give the child up for adoption, he should not have a say in the matter, because in the end, the child will belong to the new family anyways, and he is a potential danger of course.



I feel if they didn't do this, it would open the door to any guy that wanted to have a kid knocking up some vulnerable woman or intelectually handicapped woman then claiming parental rights after the child was born. I feel it must be a consentual act to acquire parental rights for the other party.



On the flip side, I feel that if a woman tricks a guy somehow (gets him too drunk, pokes a hole in the condom) shouldn't be able to claim child support for the child they produce, because that wasn't a consentual act either. Mistakes happen, but that is just too much, and it should just go both ways.

Hannah - posted on 12/02/2010

91

0

3

I agree, Joy but will take it a bit further. The minute the man rapes the woman, he becomes a not-entity, period!



**will I forever have an edited section on my posts, holy hell***

[deleted account]

No, he should have no say in a woman's decision to put the child up for adoption, if that's what she chooses to do.
No, he definitely should not have rights to custody or anything that would involve contact with his victim OR their offspring.
I think in this situation, the minute the man rapes the woman, he becomes a non-entity as far as the child is concerned.
No.

Jessica - posted on 12/02/2010

626

26

29

No, but I don't believe they should have any rights all let alone access to there kids.

JuLeah - posted on 12/02/2010

3,133

38

694

Won't he be in jail? I am sure she'd have a 'no contact order' set on him if he were out. He'd have to prove the baby was his, or she'd have to list him as the father on legal documents. If he had legal status as the father, yah, the state could not put the baby up for adoption without his consent, but the chances of all that happening - unless the womans' rapist was her husband or boy friend, are not that great.

Stifler's - posted on 12/02/2010

15,141

154

604

I don't think so. He should be in jail/have all rights stripped since he broke the law in order to conceive the child. He should have to pay damages and child support though but definitely have no rights to see his child.

Nikki - posted on 12/02/2010

5,263

41

574

Good question Kati, bit of a terrifying question really, need to think about this one.

~Jennifer - posted on 12/02/2010

4,164

61

369

I would think that if you infringed on another persons rights via an illegal act that you would be incarcerated for (rape).... that you would have no rights to the product of your actions.
Think of it as 'prisoners who are unable to profit via their illegal actions' - such as the ones that become the subject of books or tv movies.

Opening up that possibility would allow any man that decided he wanted a child with "x" woman to commit the crime of rape with his own desired reults(ie: the resulting child)....so where does thst leave a woman in a relationship that decides she 'doesn't want kids' if 'he does'?

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms