Another Example of Our Screwed-Up Laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Example Laws
Click For Summary
The discussion highlights the complexities and perceived injustices of child support laws in cases of statutory rape, particularly when the male is underage. Participants argue that if a 15-year-old boy is deemed incapable of giving informed consent, he should not be held financially responsible for the child resulting from the encounter. The conversation also critiques the legal system's treatment of male victims compared to female offenders, questioning why the boy is required to pay child support while the older female is not held to the same standard. There is a strong sentiment that the laws are inconsistent and unfair, leading to broader frustrations with societal norms and legal practices. Ultimately, the thread underscores the need for a reevaluation of how statutory rape cases are handled in relation to parental responsibilities.
  • #121
NeoDevin said:
As much as I think that the age of consent in the states should be lowered, I feel the need to point out that even in (most) countries with an age of consent of 15 or lower, what she did was still a crime. As a babysitter, she was in a position of authority over the boy.


So you are saying that as a baby sitter it was not appropriate, but you feel the age of consent should be lowered? Not to sound like an ***, but that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard here on PF. Ok for someone who needs a babysitter to father a child legally and be held responsible. Nice.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
I wouldn't mind sleeping with my baby sitters.
 
  • #123
MotoH said:
I wouldn't mind sleeping with my baby sitters.

You would have to be at least 13 :biggrin:
 
  • #124
Why is custody given to a woman who is a pedophile in the first place? Victims of statutory rape should never have to pay child support since the partner should not have any right to the child.
 
  • #125
zoobyshoe said:
It's fine if you want to lobby to get the age pushed back, but the law as it is now, exonerates the boy of any responsibility, and a judge, of all people, should not be making decisions that undercut a clear law.
Go tell that to all of the judges in juvenile court who by your logic undercut clear laws over and over again on a daily basis by holding minors responsible for their actions even though they are legally incapable of making responsible decisions.

As well would you like to tell his child that he is a bastard in perpetuity since according to you the law should not recognize who his father is?
 
  • #126
Pinu7 said:
Why is custody given to a woman who is a pedophile in the first place? Victims of statutory rape should never have to pay child support since the partner should not have any right to the child.

Well it was sort of in her uterus you know. And then paternity had to be established and a court has to decide who will get the child. And she has apparently yet to be convicted of statutory rape so legally she has no marks against her as of yet.

Also you might look up the term pedophile.
 
  • #127
Averagesupernova said:
So you are saying that as a baby sitter it was not appropriate, but you feel the age of consent should be lowered? Not to sound like an ***, but that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard here on PF. Ok for someone who needs a babysitter to father a child legally and be held responsible. Nice.

Way to make a coherent argument for your view!

I feel the age of consent should be lowered, yes. I also believe the restrictions on this for people who are in a position of authority over the minor should be instituted. I think the law here in Canada (where I am) is reasonable. Age of consent is 16, with a "less than 5 years difference" exception for 14 and 15 year olds. If the adult is in a position of authority, the age is instead 18.
 
  • #128
The mother being able to keep child that was carried in her uterous and put there by illegal means has no more right to keep that child than I would have a right to keep money that was in my bank account but was obtained and put there by illegal means.
 
  • #129
Averagesupernova said:
The mother being able to keep child that was carried in her uterous and put there by illegal means has no more right to keep that child than I would have a right to keep money that was in my bank account but was obtained and put there by illegal means.

That's for a court of law to decide. Is not a matter of opinion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
359
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
64
Views
13K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K