djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,062
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 27, 2019 18:23:54 GMT -5
Sorry. Killing an 8 month old baby is infantcide. It's illegal. Sorry, at 8 months gestation it is a baby. technically, it is a baby at 8 minutes. it is a weakness in the term.
fetus is generally what we call an 8 week+ baby in utero, however, if you want to get technical.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,307
|
Post by swamp on May 28, 2019 8:33:27 GMT -5
There don’t have to be laws in place, because no doctor would do it even if a woman wanted it. And the laws stop people like Sam from being able to make the best decisions for their situation. That is all a ban law does. Not true. Swamp posted of a doctor who did it. We all know there are unscrupulous doctors who will do whatever for a buck. Yes, there needs to be laws in place. You missed the whole point of the link. Yes, he had a medical license, but he was a mass murderer and butcher, not a run of the mill doctor.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,401
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 9, 2019 16:39:58 GMT -5
In Alabama — where lawmakers banned abortion for rape victims — rapists’ parental rights are protectedWhen a young woman came to the Family Services of North Alabama office last year for help with trauma, saying she had been raped by her step-uncle when she was 15, rape crisis advocate Portia Shepherd heard something that “killed me, shocked me.” The step-uncle, who was getting out of jail after a drug conviction, wanted to be a part of their child’s life. And in Alabama, the alleged rapist could get custody. “It’s the craziest thing I ever heard in my life,” said Shepherd. “On the state level, people were shocked. How could Alabama even be missing this law?” Alabama is one of two states with no statute terminating parental rights for a person found to have conceived the child by rape or incest, a fact that has gained fresh relevance since its lawmakers adopted the nation’s strictest abortion ban in May. That statute even outlaws the procedure for victims of sexual assault and jails doctors who perform it, except in cases of serious risk to the woman’s health. While the Alabama abortion law has been challenged in court, abortion rights activists fear it could reduce access to the procedure, forcing rape victims to bear children and co-parent with their attackers. Entire article here: In Alabama — where lawmakers banned abortion for rape victims — rapists’ parental rights are protected
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 9, 2019 16:59:39 GMT -5
I just read that. Over half of the states only terminate the rapists fathers rights upon conviction. Which happens in less than 1% of rapes.
It's all so fucked up.
|
|
Artemis Windsong
Senior Associate
The love in me salutes the love in you. M. Williamson
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 12,312
Today's Mood: Twinkling
Location: Wishing Star
Favorite Drink: Fresh, clean cold bottled water.
|
Post by Artemis Windsong on Jun 9, 2019 18:28:27 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,401
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 9, 2019 19:44:50 GMT -5
A brave stand to put one's business and reputation on the line.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 9, 2019 20:25:18 GMT -5
That's great. Hotels are often more than flights even for a short run.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 9, 2019 21:04:55 GMT -5
I just read that. Over half of the states only terminate the rapists fathers rights upon conviction. Which happens in less than 1% of rapes. It's all so fucked up. How can you terminate a fathers parental rights when he wasn’t convinced? Do you advocate terminating parental rights to anyone accused of a crime, even if never convicted? We have a justice system and people are assume innocent until proven guilty
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 9, 2019 21:22:44 GMT -5
I just read that. Over half of the states only terminate the rapists fathers rights upon conviction. Which happens in less than 1% of rapes. It's all so fucked up. How can you terminate a fathers parental rights when he wasn’t convinced? Do you advocate terminating parental rights to anyone accused of a crime, even if never convicted? We have a justice system and people are assume innocent until proven guilty 1) Parental rights aren't sorted out in criminal court. Behavior and activity that hasn't resulted in a guilty sentence is used in custody hearings all the time. So no I have no problem keeping the man who raped the child's mother away from the child when LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF RAPISTS ARE CONVICTED. Ask me again when that number is over 75%. 2) So if your daughter was raped, the man wasn't convicted, and she gave birth to his child you would have no problem with her having to constantly interact with her rapist (via hand offs, birthdays, teacher conferences, recitals, etc.)? No problem seeing your grandbaby head off to the house of the man who raped your daughter for the weekend? When your daughter is suffering from a PTSD episode from seeing her rapist again you'd just tell her "well he's your child's father"?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 9, 2019 21:34:16 GMT -5
How can you terminate a fathers parental rights when he wasn’t convinced? Do you advocate terminating parental rights to anyone accused of a crime, even if never convicted? We have a justice system and people are assume innocent until proven guilty 1) Parental rights aren't sorted out in criminal court. Behavior and activity that hasn't resulted in a guilty sentence is used in custody hearings all the time. So no I have no problem keeping the man who raped the child's mother away from the child when LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF RAPISTS ARE CONVICTED. Ask me again when that number is over 75%. 2) So if your daughter was raped, the man wasn't convicted, and she gave birth to his child you would have no problem with her having to constantly interact with her rapist (via hand offs, birthdays, teacher conferences, recitals, etc.)? No problem seeing your grandbaby head off to the house of the man who raped your daughter for the weekend? When your daughter is suffering from a PTSD episode from seeing her rapist again you'd just tell her "well he's your child's father"? Of course I would have a problem with it. Just like I have a problem with a lot of parents that retain parental rights. Drug addicts, alcoholics, neglectful parents. If it were up to me, they would all lose their parental rights Yes, and lots of people lie during custody hearings. It’s sad but true. So no, I will never be ok with terminating someone’s parental rights based on nothing more than an accusation. Edited to clarify: I would believe my daughter because in my heart she wouldn’t lie to me. So no, I would not be happy. But that doesn’t mean I think it is ok to terminate parental rights based on accusations.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 9, 2019 22:07:54 GMT -5
Civil courts have a lower preponderance of evidence than criminal courts, but it's not just accusations as you are trying to equate it to.
I think it's all levels of fucked to force someone to continuously interact with their rapists. Even more so considering how much we fail victims at every step. And I certainly can't ignore the detriment to the child that would occur by forcing its mother to continuously relive their hell over and over again.
That said, it's why I'm 100% behind allowing the women to make their choice on whether they live through that hell and I think they should be informed whether their state gives no shit about their terror and that they believe a rapist is a great candidate to raise a child.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 10, 2019 7:43:10 GMT -5
Civil courts have a lower preponderance of evidence than criminal courts, but it's not just accusations as you are trying to equate it to. I think it's all levels of fucked to force someone to continuously interact with their rapists. Even more so considering how much we fail victims at every step. And I certainly can't ignore the detriment to the child that would occur by forcing its mother to continuously relive their hell over and over again. That said, it's why I'm 100% behind allowing the women to make their choice on whether they live through that hell and I think they should be informed whether their state gives no shit about their terror and that they believe a rapist is a great candidate to raise a child. Hough, who has always supported the bill, noted a provision within it he said presents legal hurdles. The legislation calls for the termination of parental rights for "alleged rapists," he said.
"If it just dealt with convicted rapists, it would be cut-and-dried," Hough said. "Because it's about alleged rapists, there’s a lot of legal challenges."www.foxnews.com/us/in-7-us-states-rape-victims-can-be-legally-forced-to-share-custody-of-their-children-with-their-rapist-fathersI haven't done a ton of research on this topic but here is an example of why a bill didn't pass. We should never be allowed to terminate parental rights based on nothing more than allegations. Now, I am with you 100% if states are refusing to terminate convicted rapists. But I will never be ok with someone losing a job, some losing their children, etc., over allegations.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 10, 2019 8:47:49 GMT -5
Civil courts have a lower preponderance of evidence than criminal courts, but it's not just accusations as you are trying to equate it to. I think it's all levels of fucked to force someone to continuously interact with their rapists. Even more so considering how much we fail victims at every step. And I certainly can't ignore the detriment to the child that would occur by forcing its mother to continuously relive their hell over and over again. That said, it's why I'm 100% behind allowing the women to make their choice on whether they live through that hell and I think they should be informed whether their state gives no shit about their terror and that they believe a rapist is a great candidate to raise a child. Hough, who has always supported the bill, noted a provision within it he said presents legal hurdles. The legislation calls for the termination of parental rights for "alleged rapists," he said.
"If it just dealt with convicted rapists, it would be cut-and-dried," Hough said. "Because it's about alleged rapists, there’s a lot of legal challenges."www.foxnews.com/us/in-7-us-states-rape-victims-can-be-legally-forced-to-share-custody-of-their-children-with-their-rapist-fathersI haven't done a ton of research on this topic but here is an example of why a bill didn't pass. We should never be allowed to terminate parental rights based on nothing more than allegations. Now, I am with you 100% if states are refusing to terminate convicted rapists. But I will never be ok with someone losing a job, some losing their children, etc., over allegations. Again, the standards for use is not just an allegation. Civil courts have a lower standard that criminal court, but it's not no standard. Considering issues that haven't risen to the point of conviction are brought up all the time in custodial hearings rape shouldn't be the one thing that's excluded unless it's reached a conviction. Furthermore, until we fix all the systemic issues of why only 1% of rapes end in conviction it's too high of a bar to set for custodial issues. Especially so in states that force women to have the babies of their rapists. Are you also going to say that a parent's drug and alcohol use shouldn't be brought up in a custody hearing unless they have a conviction for it? That any abuse shouldn't be brought up unless there's a conviction for it? That even though it's a well known secret because there's no conviction you can't get it written into the custody order that the children should never be in contact with the child molester uncle?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 10, 2019 9:10:37 GMT -5
Hough, who has always supported the bill, noted a provision within it he said presents legal hurdles. The legislation calls for the termination of parental rights for "alleged rapists," he said.
"If it just dealt with convicted rapists, it would be cut-and-dried," Hough said. "Because it's about alleged rapists, there’s a lot of legal challenges."www.foxnews.com/us/in-7-us-states-rape-victims-can-be-legally-forced-to-share-custody-of-their-children-with-their-rapist-fathersI haven't done a ton of research on this topic but here is an example of why a bill didn't pass. We should never be allowed to terminate parental rights based on nothing more than allegations. Now, I am with you 100% if states are refusing to terminate convicted rapists. But I will never be ok with someone losing a job, some losing their children, etc., over allegations. Again, the standards for use is not just an allegation. Civil courts have a lower standard that criminal court, but it's not no standard. Considering issues that haven't risen to the point of conviction are brought up all the time in custodial hearings rape shouldn't be the one thing that's excluded unless it's reached a conviction. Furthermore, until we fix all the systemic issues of why only 1% of rapes end in conviction it's too high of a bar to set for custodial issues. Especially so in states that force women to have the babies of their rapists. Are you also going to say that a parent's drug and alcohol use shouldn't be brought up in a custody hearing unless they have a conviction for it? That any abuse shouldn't be brought up unless there's a conviction for it? That even though it's a well known secret because there's no conviction you can't get it written into the custody order that the children should never be in contact with the child molester uncle? the biggest issue is that, without a conviction, an allegation is just an allegation unless there is proof. Perhaps I should rephrase that without actual proof or evidence then a child should never be removed. An allegation should never be enough to sever parental rights. And I feel that is whether they are against the man or the woman. I've seen it with my own eyes what people in the heat of a divorce/custody issue with do. My cousin's ex-fiancé tried to accuse him of molesting his daughter so she would be awarded full custody (but she didn't want to terminate his rights because she wanted child support). She is a vindictive bitch and luckily his daughter was old enough to understand what was happening and tell the truth. Luckily for my cousin, she brought someone else into the accusation (their daughter) that could tell the truth. If she accused him of abusing her, raping her, etc., we would be in a he said/she said fight and how does anyone ever know what truly happened? Once you start talking alcohol, drug abuse there is usual an abundance of evidence of neglect from children and youth visits, reports from teachers, etc. That is much different than unsubstantiated claims, whether true or not.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 10, 2019 9:22:00 GMT -5
Again, the standards for use is not just an allegation. Civil courts have a lower standard that criminal court, but it's not no standard. Considering issues that haven't risen to the point of conviction are brought up all the time in custodial hearings rape shouldn't be the one thing that's excluded unless it's reached a conviction. Furthermore, until we fix all the systemic issues of why only 1% of rapes end in conviction it's too high of a bar to set for custodial issues. Especially so in states that force women to have the babies of their rapists. Are you also going to say that a parent's drug and alcohol use shouldn't be brought up in a custody hearing unless they have a conviction for it? That any abuse shouldn't be brought up unless there's a conviction for it? That even though it's a well known secret because there's no conviction you can't get it written into the custody order that the children should never be in contact with the child molester uncle? the biggest issue is that, without a conviction, an allegation is just an allegation unless there is proof. Perhaps I should rephrase that without actual proof or evidence then a child should never be removed. An allegation should never be enough to sever parental rights. And I feel that is whether they are against the man or the woman. I've seen it with my own eyes what people in the heat of a divorce/custody issue with do. My cousin's ex-fiancé tried to accuse him of molesting his daughter so she would be awarded full custody (but she didn't want to terminate his rights because she wanted child support). She is a vindictive bitch and luckily his daughter was old enough to understand what was happening and tell the truth. Luckily for my cousin, she brought someone else into the accusation (their daughter) that could tell the truth. If she accused him of abusing her, raping her, etc., we would be in a he said/she said fight and how does anyone ever know what truly happened? Once you start talking alcohol, drug abuse there is usual an abundance of evidence of neglect from children and youth visits, reports from teachers, etc. That is much different than unsubstantiated claims, whether true or not. For the third bloody time -- none of the states that allow this have a simple allegation as the level of proof needed. For fucks sake, stop arguing against something that doesn't even exist they are not making custody decisions on "just an allegation". And actually, a lot of the times alcohol and drugs are just as you term unsubstantiated claims. Do you really think every child that has a parent with drug or alcohol issues has a teacher that figured it out? Or some report out there? Hell abuse often goes unnoticed by teachers trained to spot it. And there's no "children and youth visits" (is that what you're calling welfare checks by CPS?) unless someone made an allegation to begin with.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 10, 2019 10:49:11 GMT -5
the biggest issue is that, without a conviction, an allegation is just an allegation unless there is proof. Perhaps I should rephrase that without actual proof or evidence then a child should never be removed. An allegation should never be enough to sever parental rights. And I feel that is whether they are against the man or the woman. I've seen it with my own eyes what people in the heat of a divorce/custody issue with do. My cousin's ex-fiancé tried to accuse him of molesting his daughter so she would be awarded full custody (but she didn't want to terminate his rights because she wanted child support). She is a vindictive bitch and luckily his daughter was old enough to understand what was happening and tell the truth. Luckily for my cousin, she brought someone else into the accusation (their daughter) that could tell the truth. If she accused him of abusing her, raping her, etc., we would be in a he said/she said fight and how does anyone ever know what truly happened? Once you start talking alcohol, drug abuse there is usual an abundance of evidence of neglect from children and youth visits, reports from teachers, etc. That is much different than unsubstantiated claims, whether true or not. For the third bloody time -- none of the states that allow this have a simple allegation as the level of proof needed. For fucks sake, stop arguing against something that doesn't even exist they are not making custody decisions on "just an allegation". And actually, a lot of the times alcohol and drugs are just as you term unsubstantiated claims. Do you really think every child that has a parent with drug or alcohol issues has a teacher that figured it out? Or some report out there? Hell abuse often goes unnoticed by teachers trained to spot it. And there's no "children and youth visits" (is that what you're calling welfare checks by CPS?) unless someone made an allegation to begin with. Not sure why you are getting so riled up...I said if there is "no actual proof or evidence". People like and I will never be ok with terminating parental rights with an unsubstantiated allegation, no matter how much you bitch about it. There are plenty of kids that should be removed from their homes that aren't. But just like I feel about severing parental rights over unsubtstantiated rape allegations, I feel the same about severing parental rights over alleged alcohol or drug abuse. I believe in innocent until proven guilty for everyone. Once there is substantiated claims, I'm all for cutting parental ties. I don't think we go far enough in that area. Once you fuck up and show the court that you don't value your child more than your alcohol or drugs, you are done until that child is 18. Once you have been convicted of any form of child abuse, you are done until that child turns 18. once you have been convicted of raping anyone, not even just the mother of the child, you lose all rights to every having custody of your child. so no, I am not about leaving children in the care of rapists, drug addicts, etc. But I am also not about cutting off parental rights without very strong evidence. But if a person is cleared in a court of law, I have no idea how you think it is acceptable to cut off parental rights (no matter what the charge)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,062
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 10, 2019 10:53:09 GMT -5
not sure that a man gains parental rights without any consent from the woman.
rape or no rape, parenting should require the consent of both parties, imo.
and no, sex and consent to bear children are not the same thing.
at all.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,690
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jun 10, 2019 11:01:18 GMT -5
depends on the circumstances of the relationship. I'd consult him, but I would understand why someone wouldn't. Just because he stuck his dick in my does not give him the right to make me his incubator. But a full term baby means you were already his incubator. Shouldn’t both parents have a say in whether a full term baby lives? I’m not talking about early abortion. Not a rapist. Shouldn't criminals lose the ability to decide?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 10, 2019 13:10:59 GMT -5
not sure that a man gains parental rights without any consent from the woman. rape or no rape, parenting should require the consent of both parties, imo. and no, sex and consent to bear children are not the same thing. at all. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If a man doesn't want a child but the woman is pregnant and refuses an abortion, he has not given consent to parent. What are you suggesting with the above?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,062
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 10, 2019 14:41:02 GMT -5
not sure that a man gains parental rights without any consent from the woman. rape or no rape, parenting should require the consent of both parties, imo. and no, sex and consent to bear children are not the same thing. at all. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If a man doesn't want a child but the woman is pregnant and refuses an abortion, he has not given consent to parent. What are you suggesting with the above? I don't understand the question. if the man has not consented, it is not his responsibility. if the woman has not consented, it is not hers. and BOTH must consent for the man to have any "paternal rights".
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,334
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jun 10, 2019 14:45:46 GMT -5
I just read that. Over half of the states only terminate the rapists fathers rights upon conviction. Which happens in less than 1% of rapes. It's all so fucked up. How can you terminate a fathers parental rights when he wasn’t convinced? Do you advocate terminating parental rights to anyone accused of a crime, even if never convicted? We have a justice system and people are assume innocent until proven guilty But with the anti-abortion laws put in place lately, you have just converted females from equal to males to prey for male hunters. You like a female and she wants nothing to do with you? No problem → get her pregnant against her will and she will have to deal with you forever after. That'll teach the b*tch!
They are making females the place to "plant your flag" as they do in the little boys game.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 10, 2019 14:47:10 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If a man doesn't want a child but the woman is pregnant and refuses an abortion, he has not given consent to parent. What are you suggesting with the above? I don't understand the question. if the man has not consented, it is not his responsibility. if the woman has not consented, it is not hers. BOTH must consent.
But legally the man doesn't need to give consent for a child to be born. He is still on the hook for 18 years worth of child support. That is what I was asking. If he didn't give consent for the child to be born, are you saying he should have no financial responsibility? I "think" that is what you are saying but I'm not sure.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 10, 2019 14:50:50 GMT -5
How can you terminate a fathers parental rights when he wasn’t convinced? Do you advocate terminating parental rights to anyone accused of a crime, even if never convicted? We have a justice system and people are assume innocent until proven guilty But with the anti-abortion laws put in place lately, you have just converted females from equal to males to prey for male hunters. You like a female and she wants nothing to do with you? No problem → get her pregnant against her will and she will have to deal with you forever after. That'll teach the b*tch!
They are making females the place to "plant your flag" as they do in the little boys game.
Isn't that inline with what females can do? I would never consider abortion so if my boyfriend had gotten me pregnant, he would have had no say in the matter. I could have just poked holes in his condoms and he would have been none the wiser. I wouldn't have done that because I'm not a freaking psycho but I've ready stories about that being done. So, in reality, when it comes to being stuck with a child you do not want, it actually is more equal.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,062
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 10, 2019 14:55:27 GMT -5
I don't understand the question. if the man has not consented, it is not his responsibility. if the woman has not consented, it is not hers. BOTH must consent.
But legally the man doesn't need to give consent for a child to be born. I didn't say anything about need.
and i was actually responding to your statement about "paternal rights" not "legal responsibility".
so, let me see if i understand your position: are you claiming that a man who gets a woman pregnant WITHOUT HER CONSENT has "parental rights"? because i think that is pure rubbish. he has no rights whatsoever in that situation, imo.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 10, 2019 15:03:29 GMT -5
1) Parental rights aren't sorted out in criminal court. Behavior and activity that hasn't resulted in a guilty sentence is used in custody hearings all the time. So no I have no problem keeping the man who raped the child's mother away from the child when LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF RAPISTS ARE CONVICTED. Ask me again when that number is over 75%. 2) So if your daughter was raped, the man wasn't convicted, and she gave birth to his child you would have no problem with her having to constantly interact with her rapist (via hand offs, birthdays, teacher conferences, recitals, etc.)? No problem seeing your grandbaby head off to the house of the man who raped your daughter for the weekend? When your daughter is suffering from a PTSD episode from seeing her rapist again you'd just tell her "well he's your child's father"? Of course I would have a problem with it. Just like I have a problem with a lot of parents that retain parental rights. Drug addicts, alcoholics, neglectful parents. If it were up to me, they would all lose their parental rights Yes, and lots of people lie during custody hearings. It’s sad but true. So no, I will never be ok with terminating someone’s parental rights based on nothing more than an accusation. Edited to clarify: I would believe my daughter because in my heart she wouldn’t lie to me. So no, I would not be happy. But that doesn’t mean I think it is ok to terminate parental rights based on accusations. So, you would believe your daughter saying she was raped, but it seems like you would be fine with the rapist sharing custody. After all, his parental "rights" shouldn't be terminated. He EARNED those rights when he committed the crime?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 10, 2019 15:13:59 GMT -5
But legally the man doesn't need to give consent for a child to be born. I didn't say anything about need.
and i was actually responding to your statement about "paternal rights" not "legal responsibility".
so, let me see if i understand your position: are you claiming that a man who gets a woman pregnant WITHOUT HER CONSENT has "parental rights"? because i think that is pure rubbish. he has no rights whatsoever in that situation, imo.
No, that is not what I am saying at all. I was asking you to clarify what you were saying as I was confused. I have said several times in this thread that a man who is convicted of raping a woman should have his parental rights terminated immediately.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 10, 2019 15:15:32 GMT -5
Of course I would have a problem with it. Just like I have a problem with a lot of parents that retain parental rights. Drug addicts, alcoholics, neglectful parents. If it were up to me, they would all lose their parental rights Yes, and lots of people lie during custody hearings. It’s sad but true. So no, I will never be ok with terminating someone’s parental rights based on nothing more than an accusation. Edited to clarify: I would believe my daughter because in my heart she wouldn’t lie to me. So no, I would not be happy. But that doesn’t mean I think it is ok to terminate parental rights based on accusations. So, you would believe your daughter saying she was raped, but it seems like you would be fine with the rapist sharing custody. After all, his parental "rights" shouldn't be terminated. He EARNED those rights when he committed the crime? As usual, you are twisting what I said. I believe my daughter because she is my daughter. I do not believe other people without evidence. and that goes for no matter what the crime is. that is the basis of our justice system. Innocent until proven guilty. Is it not like that in your country? Are people assumed guilty until proven innocent?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 10, 2019 15:20:48 GMT -5
So, you would believe your daughter saying she was raped, but it seems like you would be fine with the rapist sharing custody. After all, his parental "rights" shouldn't be terminated. He EARNED those rights when he committed the crime? As usual, you are twisting what I said. I believe my daughter because she is my daughter. I do not believe other people without evidence. and that goes for no matter what the crime is. that is the basis of our justice system. Innocent until proven guilty. Is it not like that in your country? Are people assumed guilty until proven innocent? In my country, women are allowed to terminate their pregnancies at will, rape or no rape. To be forced to carry your rapist's child in majorly, majorly, fucked up. You said you'd believe your daughter because she's your daughter. If that's the case, and it's just an allegation without conviction, then she'd have to share custody with the man who did the heinous act. Clearly, you'd be fine with it because "innocent until proven guilty".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,062
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 10, 2019 16:15:27 GMT -5
I didn't say anything about need.
and i was actually responding to your statement about "paternal rights" not "legal responsibility".
so, let me see if i understand your position: are you claiming that a man who gets a woman pregnant WITHOUT HER CONSENT has "parental rights"? because i think that is pure rubbish. he has no rights whatsoever in that situation, imo.
No, that is not what I am saying at all. I was asking you to clarify what you were saying as I was confused. I have said several times in this thread that a man who is convicted of raping a woman should have his parental rights terminated immediately. ok, sorry. I misread your post. thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,334
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jun 10, 2019 17:03:24 GMT -5
So, you would believe your daughter saying she was raped, but it seems like you would be fine with the rapist sharing custody. After all, his parental "rights" shouldn't be terminated. He EARNED those rights when he committed the crime? As usual, you are twisting what I said. I believe my daughter because she is my daughter. I do not believe other people without evidence. and that goes for no matter what the crime is. that is the basis of our justice system. Innocent until proven guilty. Is it not like that in your country? Are people assumed guilty until proven innocent? But what happens if the rapist's lawyer gets the attacker off? Do you still believe your daughter? Or is she now a liar since he was "proven not-guilty"? And if there is a child would you be ok with forcing her to co-parent with this "not-guilty" male?
Will you welcome him into your home for Xmas celebrations to make sue he can assert his full parental "rights"?
Really, you don't get to pick and chose when you get to decide other people's lives. My daughter → the scumbag, no way. Someone else → well she what exactly
|
|