If John resorts to law in such situations, then he have absolutely no morality. He had sex with her, its his child and so he has a responsibility to look after her and the child. What kinda person wouldnt do that? If he doesnt earn enough now, then he should wait till he is older and then go on to marry her. Thats his moral obligation. Law also is very a valuable part of life, but morality is absolute highest. He shouldnt run around crying that he was raped because that would be just wrong. Just imagine what the mother must be going through! And think about the child as well :| Sorry but tell your friend to take more responsibility for his actions.
It really depends on the state. In some states, from what I recall, a minor is legally obligated to pay support in a "statutory rape" scenario.
Morally obligated? Perhaps... It is not the kid's fault that its daddy was "raped" - statutory rape is a funny thing. The law is often applied unevenly, and there are myriad policy issues that muck up the water (like the child's right to support alluded to above).
Morally obligated? Perhaps... It is not the kid's fault that its daddy was "raped" - statutory rape is a funny thing. The law is often applied unevenly, and there are myriad policy issues that muck up the water (like the child's right to support alluded to above).
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
Aw, you're too much!
Anyway, since norrabty is a Californian, the answer is that his friend IS legally responsible for child support.
Standing case law in California has rejected as a defense to child support the fact that the father was a victim of statutory rape. Reasoning that the father and mother had consensual sex, the court in San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel J., ___ Cal. App. 4th ___, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (1996) saw no reason to excuse the father from the consequences of his actions, holding that statutory rape cannot be used as a financial shield.
Text from the decision:
The law should not except Nathaniel J. from this responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones's criminal acts. After discussing the matter, he and Jones decided to have sexual relations. They had sexual intercourse approximately five times over a two-week period.
In an action to impose vicarious liability upon a minor's parents, Cynthia M. v. Rodney E. 228 Cal. App. 3d 1040, 1045, 279 Cal. Rptr. 94 (1991), held a minor's consent to unlawful sexual intercourse was "a permissible consideration" in denying liability. "[T]here is an important distinction between a party who is injured through no fault of his or her own and an injured party who willingly participated in the offense about which a complaint is made." ( Id., at pp. 1046-1047.) One who is injured as a result of criminal conduct in which he willingly participated is not a typical crime victim. ( Id., at p. 1047, fn. 13.) It does not necessarily follow that a minor over the age of 14 who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is a victim of sexual abuse. (Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp, 181 Cal. App. 3d 245, 261, 226 Cal. Rptr. 361(1986))
I will leave each of you to decide whether morality dictates payment, but the law definitely does.
Hell no he's not responsible. Doesn't matter whether she is poor or not. She could have had an abortion.
She knew what she was doing. If she chose to have the baby then she has no right to expect a 15 year old to help support this baby. She could have had an abortion.
So because he was 15 and obviously not smart enough to put on a rubber, but smart enough to have sex , She should have killed a baby. Yeah that makes sense.
Why didn't adoption come out of your mouth. See your method of birth control would be killing.
Anyhow, even if a condom or something had been used Nothing is 100% affective against getting pregnant except not having sex!
He should step up and take action for his actions. Didn't it say he is 18 now..Sorry he can work and help support his kid.
He was able to do the deed now he should keep doing his part in taking care of the result.
If a woman is raped she is not forced to be responsible for the baby. Why should this boy (now man) be forced to be responsible for the baby after he was raped? And it was rape even if he doesn't think it was. The woman took advantage of the situation. There are reasons why we have laws against adults being sexually active with minors. She could have given the child up for adoption too if she wished, or had an abortion. My point was that she commited a crime, and she chose to keep this child. Therefore the boy has no responsibility for this child either in a legal or a moral sense.
Don_Vito, interesting input.
I'm no lawer (
) but how could they justifiably charge the women with statuatory rape when the court itself is basically saying he is not a victim? This smacks of discrimination to me. If a (for example) 21 y.o male has consensual sex with 15 y.o female, the female is habitually potrayed as a victim in our society of a predatory male. Yet when the opposite occurs its brushed off.
Obviously I dont know the whole story, but we should either do away with the law for good or enforce it and the associated consequences with equality.
FWIW, the first time I had sexual intercourse was when I was 15 at a boarding school. The girl was 19, which would have made her eligible for a sexual misconduct charge.
I'm no lawer (
) but how could they justifiably charge the women with statuatory rape when the court itself is basically saying he is not a victim? This smacks of discrimination to me. If a (for example) 21 y.o male has consensual sex with 15 y.o female, the female is habitually potrayed as a victim in our society of a predatory male. Yet when the opposite occurs its brushed off. Obviously I dont know the whole story, but we should either do away with the law for good or enforce it and the associated consequences with equality.
FWIW, the first time I had sexual intercourse was when I was 15 at a boarding school. The girl was 19, which would have made her eligible for a sexual misconduct charge.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Because there is a BIG difference between forcible rape and statutory rape.
I agree completely with your point, the boy should not be responsible because he was not capable of giving consent or completely understanding the outcome of his actions. But I disagree with your analogy that forcible rape and statutory rape are one and the same.
Give me a break. A 15 year old boy knows the consequences of sex and drinking. We hold drunk drivers responsible, why not drunk fathers? He probably had the time of his life.
He should be morally obligated IMO. It?s his kid whether he like it or not. Putting all this rape BS aside, the original poster has said that he knew what he was doing and that he would have done it if they weren?t drunk. This tells me that he knew the seriousness of the situation, and chose to walk that path, so he should have some morals that obligate him to pay up.
BTW, reading Don_vito's reply, most of you are wrong (legally), so there!
BTW, reading Don_vito's reply, most of you are wrong (legally), so there!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter