Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    07 Dec '13 16:351 edit
    I read about this and here is the link to the first site I found with a story about it:

    In California, an appellate court upheld an order (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J., 1996) forcing a 15 year old boy to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth.The court ruled that although the boy was considered too young to provide consent to the sex act, he was an admitted willing participant and therefore liable to pay support stating that he was not an “innocent victim” because he had discussed it with his rapist prior to having sex.

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/legally-obscene/

    If a girl is raped, she can have an abortion or give the child up for adoption. If a guy gets raped he must pay up for 18 years. Where is the justice in that?
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    07 Dec '13 16:47
    Agreed. That's disgustingly unjust.
  3. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    95098
    07 Dec '13 17:23
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I read about this and here is the link to the first site I found with a story about it:

    [b]In California, an appellate court upheld an order (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J., 1996) forcing a 15 year old boy to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth.The court ruled that although the boy was considered too young to prov ...[text shortened]... p for adoption. If a guy gets raped he must pay up for 18 years. Where is the justice in that?
    the case mentioned was statutory rape, so the man/boy consented to sex. therefore i think he did have a responsibility to pay for the child.
  4. Joined
    08 Dec '12
    Moves
    9224
    07 Dec '13 17:32
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    the case mentioned was statutory rape, so the man/boy consented to sex. therefore i think he did have a responsibility to pay for the child.
    Consent or not, he was too young to have the legal capacity to be held responsible for something of that nature.
    It'd be like him signing a contract when he was 14 and holding him to it.
  5. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    95098
    07 Dec '13 17:46
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    Consent or not, he was too young to have the legal capacity to be held responsible for something of that nature.
    It'd be like him signing a contract when he was 14 and holding him to it.
    it looks like the courts agreed with me. so im guessing he was held legally responsible.
  6. Joined
    08 Dec '12
    Moves
    9224
    07 Dec '13 17:481 edit
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    it looks like the courts agreed with me. so im guessing he was held legally responsible.
    This is a case where the courts got it wrong.
    Way wrong.
    I'd bet this gets overturned on appeal, it's too stupid a ruling to stand.
  7. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    95098
    07 Dec '13 18:17
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    This is a case where the courts got it wrong.
    Way wrong.
    I'd bet this gets overturned on appeal, it's too stupid a ruling to stand.
    it happened in 1996.
  8. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    95098
    07 Dec '13 18:22
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    This is a case where the courts got it wrong.
    Way wrong.
    I'd bet this gets overturned on appeal, it's too stupid a ruling to stand.
    when i was 15 my girlfriend was slightly older than me by several months. at one point in the year she hit 16 and i was still 15. at that point we went from under age sex to statutory rape. if she had gotten pregnant do you think i should have been free from financial obligation?
  9. Standard membersasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    Walking the earth.
    Joined
    13 Oct '04
    Moves
    50664
    07 Dec '13 18:23
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    it happened in 1996.
    Yeah this is pretty bad.
  10. Joined
    08 Dec '12
    Moves
    9224
    07 Dec '13 18:291 edit
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    when i was 15 my girlfriend was slightly older than me by several months. at one point in the year she hit 16 and i was still 15. at that point we went from under age sex to statutory rape. if she had gotten pregnant do you think i should have been free from financial obligation?
    You have just totally changed the age parameters of the case involved in the discussion so it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks.
    It's like telling us you like strawberries. What does your hypothetical question have to do with anything?
  11. Joined
    29 Mar '09
    Moves
    767
    07 Dec '13 18:34
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I read about this and here is the link to the first site I found with a story about it:

    [b]In California, an appellate court upheld an order (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J., 1996) forcing a 15 year old boy to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth.The court ruled that although the boy was considered too young to prov ...[text shortened]... p for adoption. If a guy gets raped he must pay up for 18 years. Where is the justice in that?
    What? Was it one of his liberal teachers breaking him in or something?
  12. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    07 Dec '13 18:34
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    it looks like the courts agreed with me. so im guessing he was held legally responsible.
    Yes he was.

    I take it that you disagree with the statutory rape laws.
  13. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    07 Dec '13 18:431 edit
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    Consent or not, he was too young to have the legal capacity to be held responsible for something of that nature.
    It'd be like him signing a contract when he was 14 and holding him to it.
    Yes it is. If it was a female, then she would not be held responsible by the courts for the baby. Since he is a guy he is held responsible by the courts.

    This is a clear cut case of sex bias/discrimination by the courts.
  14. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    95098
    07 Dec '13 18:44
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    You have just totally changed the age parameters of the case involved in the discussion so it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks.
    It's like telling us you like strawberries. What does your hypothetical question have to do with anything?
    you posted this -

    "Consent or not, he was too young to have the legal capacity to be held responsible for something of that nature. "

    im wondering if you think in my case i would have been also too young to have legal capacity to be held responsible? i guess my point is that there are many other important factors to consider not just the age and that age isnt always connected to legal capacity. if you were shot by 15 year old kid im sure you would expect them to be legally responsible for their actions.
  15. Joined
    08 Dec '12
    Moves
    9224
    07 Dec '13 18:46
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Yes it is. If it was a female, then she would not be held responsible by the courts for the baby. Since he is a guy he is held responsible by the courts.

    This is a clear cut case of sex bias/discrimination by the courts.
    What?
    You disagreed with me, then agreed with me.
    Are you intoximacated?
Back to Top