Posted on 08/18/2008 11:37:43 AM PDT by PercivalWalks
Under the age descibed in the statue she broke(statutory rape). I find it hard to believe you are this dense(no offense intended). I think you and others who don’t agree with these statutes need to petition your legislators for redress. Until such time though, all mmust abide by the laws as written.
I'd agree, except the law is an ass to have it both ways. Either he's a rape victim and owes no child support and is entitled to sue for damages (i.e., if the rapist had any assets, LOL), or he's an irresponsible dad who needs to man-up. But not both (I agree with the author that 15-19 should not be statutory rape).
And if we're so concerned about the child, we should note that it won't help the kid any to have his mother in the joint.
The truth is, he fathered a baby. As far as I can tell, he did that voluntarily. He could just as easily have done this with a younger girl. He’d still be the father, and still be responsible for child support. It doesn’t matter what the baby’s grandmother thinks of the baby’s mother, or what she tells the media. By all accounts, he wasn’t forced to father the baby.
If he wants to sever his parental responsibilities, there is a legal process for that. He can’t just refuse to pay court ordered child support, because his mother thinks his ex-girlfriend is unfit.
we need pics to determine whether she is a plain-Jane.
"Voluntarily" implies he had free will. Under the law of Ohio, 15-year-olds don't have free will, at least not when it comes to refusing 19-year-old sluts.
LOL ~ Talk about a double standard. She’s a slut because she had sex with him. He’s a saint because he had sex with her. LOL
Why is it that women want to apply a double standard on this issue. She made a decision to become a parent, she then decided that he would be a parent whether he wanted to or not. The ability to have a child should be made on ones ability to provide for the child before its born. If the fact of $50 in support makes him a deadbeat, does the fact she doesn’t have a similar amount of money without state support (especially when she gets locked-up) make her a deadbeat mother? Sex can be done without resulting in a live birth.
Nope but as most people have made clear, he is still responsible. Minor - pffft doesn’t matter. Raped - pfft her own damn fault.
Yes, the mother could have hired an abortionist to kill the evidence of her crime.
Cordially,
In this particular case, that is actually a fact in evidence. In our system of laws, children are not competent to give consent -- that's not a technicality -- the meaning of rape is sex without consent.
What part of "child" don't you understand?
The part that defines a child as a punishment. Thank God most parents don’t agree with you.
You can’t defend your position, so you lie about what I said. I guess when you’re promoting Obama’s claim that children are a punishment, you have to use whatever’s at your disposal.
Is this the point where you switch to the argument that 15 year olds don’t know where babies come from? Or will you use the argument that the 19 year old pedophile slut forcefully molested the innocent little 15 year old toddler? It’s difficult to keep up with all the off-the-wall arguments the deadbeat dads keep rotating through.
Why don’t you try sticking with an accurate depiction of what really happened, and what a child really is? Oh yeah, because then your argument wouldn’t hold water.
You’d have a hard time finding a 15 year old outside of your own household that doesn’t know where babies come from, or what a baby is. A 15 year old is not a baby. A baby is not a punishment. Babies come from the activity that both of these people decided to engage in. They both did something wrong. The baby didn’t.
Odd that you believe the legal system can change reality regarding a person’s sex drive, but you reject the legal system’s recognition of the long established fact that parents are responsible for their children. You must be a big hit among your friends.
Talk about somebody who can't defend a position. It is irrelevant to any judge or officer of any court whether a boy knows where babies come from, or what his sex drive is.
Under our law, this woman is a rapist. Her victim is a child; whatever his physiological responses may be, he is not legally competent to consent to sex, therefore, this is rape. All the man hating statements in the world do not change these facts. If you think 15 year olds are legally competent, by all means begin a letter writing campaign or a public crusade to have your legislature lower the age to 12, 11, 10, or whatever you think is appropriate. Be sure to include mentally retarded and other nonfunctional people whose penises work just fine, so we have to assume they can't be raped either. In the meantime, go hang out at NAMBLA or some other web site where a disregard for the sexualization of children is embraced. But don't try to peddle a disrespect for law or misanthropy as "conservatism."
No, I can’t buy into your pedophile fantasy. That was more revealing than I think you expected.
Btw, I have expressed support for the law. You are the one who objects to the judge’s lawful ruling that the father must pay a small fraction of his baby’s expenses, based on your claim that raping a baby is no worse than having consensual sex with someone close to your own age. The doesn’t support your depraved fantasy.
I believe men are as capable of doing the right thing as women are. That isn’t hating men. It isn’t even hating men who choose to do the wrong thing, and then try to dodge their responsibilities and blame the people they hurt along the way, calling their victims “punishment” for the non-victimization of the perpetrator. It’s just what most people believe. Most people believe that each person is responsible for their own behavior. Some people either have never considered that possibility, or just think reality doesn’t apply to them. Those are the kind of people who believe it’s okay for them to do the depraved things you talked about, because reality doesn’t apply to them, and their rape fantasies toward and actual rape of babies is okay because they claim it’s no worse than consensual sex, because rape is whatever the liberals decide it is today.
t
All your infantile name-calling and projection has "revealed" is more misanthropy. Project all you like: you are the one who thinks a nineteen year-old-woman should be allowed to rape a fifteen year old boy without consequences -- in fact given rewards -- not me.
Btw, I have expressed support for the law.
No, you have not. You continue to pretend that this soon-to-be-convicted rapist is simply a single-mother, who deserves to be awarded a stipend for her crime and incredibly bad judgment.
You are the one who objects to the judge’s lawful ruling that the father must pay a small fraction of his baby’s expenses, based on your claim that raping a baby is no worse than having consensual sex with someone close to your own age.
Apparently, you're as dim-witted as you are man-hating. Now get this straight: There was NO consensual sex in this case, because a fifteen year-old is NOT capable of giving consent. Developmentally, a fifteen year-old is significantly different from a nineteen year-old. The law recognizes this; you don't.
Second, the judge's ruling, unfortunately for your twisted concept of "responsibily" is not likely to be upheld, and is not likely to be considered lawful on appeal. In Ohio, a criminal cannot obtain any compensation in relation outcomes derived directly or indirectly from the conviction of a felony. The only thing that would keep this from being overturned is a sensible amortization of legal costs vs. $50/month. The [law] doesn’t support your depraved fantasy.
Keep writing. Your posts get kookier with each response -- the best way for people in this forum to judge the quality of your putative "thoughts" is by having you continue to rave.
I hope this women goes to prison for the maximum length of time -- the law supports me in this regard, not you. I'm glad to see she'll be registered as the rapist that she is for the next 25 years, again, the law support my position on this not yours. Men go to prison in this country every day for this crime; and they should, and so should female rapists.
The only "fantasy" I have is that the judge will grant custody to the boy's parents with the stipulation that the adoptive parents must move so far away that these two losers will never have the slightest chance of seeing their progeny: it's unlikely either of them would try, even more unlikely either will ever have a job that allows them to save for a bus ticket.
Unfortunately, this is a fantasy and nothing more. Grandparents have no standing. It's a shame because the fate of the baby in this case is all but graven in stone (as, sadly, was the fate of the rapist who produced him.)
Talk about punishing the child: this baby is already being punished, before he's was even born: his father is a boy and his mother is a rapist with a family of even bigger losers than she is.
I believe men are as capable of doing the right thing as women are.
Very generous of you. All the men in the world have breathed a sigh of relief at your magnanimity, your majesty... Yawn.
That isn’t hating men. It isn’t even hating men who choose to do the wrong thing, and then try to dodge their responsibilities and blame the people they hurt along the way, calling their victims “punishment” for the non-victimization of the perpetrator.
Again: the there is no "man" in this story. There is a boy and his female rapist. She is not the "victim" of anyone but herself. Under our law, however -- whether you like it or not -- that boy is a victim, and this rapist will shortly discover that at her sentencing hearing. Apparently, you will not, no matter how many times you're told.
It’s just what most people believe. Most people believe that each person is responsible for their own behavior.
One person is not a they. In English, one person is a he. Even your grammatical errors are misanthropic. But again, your legal reasoning is absurd: courts do not regard children as bearing the same level of responsibility as adults. In every jursidiction I am aware of, quite apart from the question of rape, the nineteen year old is an adult, and the fifteen year old is a juvenile.
Some people either have never considered that possibility, or just think reality doesn’t apply to them.
Queue the theme from Lost in Space.
Those are the kind of people who believe it’s okay for them to do the depraved things you talked about, because reality doesn’t apply to them,
The woman in the story is just such a person, and you are the one defending her. Please try NOT to refute your own silly arguments.
and their rape fantasies toward and actual rape of babies is okay because they claim it’s no worse than consensual sex,
There was sex. There was no consent. Learn the law before you post this drivel again.
because rape is whatever the liberals decide it is today
Statutory rape laws precede the advent of modern liberalism by several decades; there are even some variations on them that go back into English Common Law: they have nothing to do with modern liberalism at all. Please do a little research.
The woman is a rapist. Case closed. Nothing you've said changes that, but it has betrayed you as a man-hater with extremely limited debating skills. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to keep on posting. In fact, I'd love you to start a blog! I especially like the personal attacks: they really drive your insane, blind, hatred home. Don't worry -- I won't ask an Admin Mod to intervene -- I'd like folks perusing these threads to see you in all your glory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.