Tethered to their rapists

GRIND said:
yeah the above is pretty fucked up. though I don't know why you would want a rape baby to begin with. It's also unfortunate when men are forced to pay child support when they are statutory raped by women. Basically, the world is a fucked up place.
Click to expand...

GRIND said:
you know, i dont think so. I mean, "normal" parents can lose legal custody of children without needing to have raped the mom. I can't imagine a rapist being convicted and going to jail would be able to maintain parental rights.
Click to expand...



Well, there's the barely-post-adolescent viewpoint.
 
Haiku said:
But the law is on the books, why is that?
Click to expand...

Because like Tom says too many women lie about rape. You want to strip men of their parental rights just on the say so of any bint who comes down the pike do you? Video or it didn't happen that's what I say!
 
See misogynists love stories like these because it gives them the chance to say "oh, whoa, now I don't hold with that". Though it's notable that JPP's Queen of misogyny, Tom, first attempted to find a way off the hook for the rapist.

What has been going on at JPP is far more insidious than this.
 
Bijou said:
The rapist has rights? When the sex was not consensual?

Thank you for illuminating yourself so clearly.
Click to expand...
To the child? Yes. It's his kid too. The rape may(probably will) mean that he gets no custody of the child but he still gets to be heard in court if that's the law.
 
Bijou said:
Oh, I see. So, never mind that he actually is guilty of rape. Until the court says it, he's innocent. Noted.
Click to expand...

I don't think Bijou understands the point of a trial, trying to be ironic but that's precisely how it works. "Innocent until proven guilty" and all that just because somebody accuses another, doesn't mean they're guilty.
 
Disillusioned said:
I don't think Bijou understands the point of a trial, trying to be ironic but that's precisely how it works. "Innocent until proven guilty" and all that just because somebody accuses another, doesn't mean they're guilty.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the very obvious and simple fact that the guy admitted his crime. The court finding otherwise doesn't erase his actual guilt. Is that too complex for ya?
 
Damocles said:
In what way? The man should be in prison, how would he "raise" the child?
Click to expand...
He has not been prosecuted, therefore has not been found guilty of rape. Just because she said he did doesn't remove his rights to the child(otherwise divorce cases would be much faster). If he is not found guilty, wants the kid, he still has the right to be heard in court.

Not sure why the law is a matter at all, he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, whether she claims rape is a matter for te courts, until he has been found guilty, he has as much right to the child as any other father. Should he be found guilty he will probably be in prison, so the point will be null and once he gets out a court will be unlikely to give him any rights to his child.

As a final point, the "legitimate rape" scandal/gaff/f***up/whatever you call it. Has really nothing to do with this case, just another chance for certain characters(naming no names) to roll it out again.
 
Haiku said:
But the law is on the books, why is that?
Click to expand...
Because if congress doesn't pass new laws they can't justify their salary. So they trot out new laws every now and then, increase the amount of schooling for lawyers and judges, make the law even more opaque and confusing and guarentee trials last even longer.
 
Bijou said:
I don't think you understand the very obvious and simple fact that the guy admitted his crime. The court finding otherwise doesn't erase his actual guilt. Is that too complex for ya?
Click to expand...
He admitted "what I did" he could mean consensual sex, his comment could be twisted in any manner. If he had admitted to raping her, the prosecution wouldn't need to involve her at all.

The court finding is the crime, im trying to make this simpler but you don't seem to get it. "Until he has been found guilty, he is presumed innocent. He has not been found guilty, ergo he is presumed innocent." It's like arguing with legion.
 
Disillusioned said:
Is this supposed to be an answer? What's "legitimate rape"? Not sure what this is supposed to prove. Legion strikes again!
Click to expand...

Stupid strikes again - that'd be you, Disinformed.


Educate yourself, rube:






Then there's his co-sponsor, Romney's running mate:


 
Disillusioned said:
He admitted "what I did" he could mean consensual sex, his comment could be twisted in any manner. If he had admitted to raping her, the prosecution wouldn't need to involve her at all.

The court finding is the crime, im trying to make this simpler but you don't seem to get it. "Until he has been found guilty, he is presumed innocent. He has not been found guilty, ergo he is presumed innocent." It's like arguing with legion.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. Better go grab that bigger shovel I mentioned.
 
Disillusioned said:
He is 50% of of the genetics, that does give him rights, though its as low as when one parent uses the kids as leverage against the other in a divorce(both genders do that I'm not casting aspersions)
Click to expand...

So what, that is messed up, it was an act of violence, and in my opinion, the rapist has no rights, none! Except the right to go to jail.
 
Last edited:
Rana said:
So what, that is messed up, it was an act of violence, and in my opinion, the rapist has no rights, none! Except the iChat to go to jail.
Click to expand...
He has not, repeat not, been convicted.

No matter what Bijou says, not convicted means not convicted. Until she presses charges and he is convicted, he is presumed innocent, once he is, lock him up, toss out his parental rights, do whatever, but until then, he still has rights as 50% of the genes.
 
Disillusioned said:
He has not, repeat not, been convicted.

No matter what Bijou says, not convicted means not convicted. Until she presses charges and he is convicted, he is presumed innocent, once he is, lock him up, toss out his parental rights, do whateXver, but until then, he still has rights as 50% of the genes.
Click to expand...

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how screwed up it is, but his admission that it is his child and the law, and the woman not wanting to have him in her life, saved his ass from trial. The law needs to be changed. Rapist don't have the right to see a child that was conceived in a criminal act.

They don't allow robbers to keep the money, and this is by far a more heinous crime, so they should not be allowed any rights to the child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top