The sexual violation has already happened. When the baby is born, it is innocent of any of that. So its interests are separate from how it was conceived. As the flipside of this example, if a woman gets raped and later gives birth to a baby, do you think the baby should have no rights toward the mother? Again, it's not the baby's fault. I understand it is a total dilemma, but you just have to place the baby's interests at the top, even though this seems unfair to the person who got violated. The only way to sort of fix this is to give that person monetary recourse against the perpetrator. Again, a dilemma, because if the perpetrator goes to jail, enforcing these monetary claims becomes even more difficult.
So why is it ok to Kill the Child of a Rape Victim? i.e. Abortion. Why is ok for THAT INNOCENT to victimized? Hell. . . . Is the woman is raped and she has the baby . . she can walk away and never pay a DIME!!!! It's called ADOPTION!! They can even leave the kid on the steps of the firehouse and just walk away! So evidently people beleive that baby should have NO RIGHTS TOWARD THE MOTHER. Rocket River
If a woman decides to keep, someone will eventually pay. If a woman decides to put the baby up for adoption, someone will eventually pay. If a woman decides to abort, its her choice. As was the other choices. If a man decides to... - What IS he deciding?? A man decided with his penis and thats that. Criminalization of the penis continues. But somehow the woman thought in her right mind all along. But I understand its about who EVENTUALLY WILL be right, not so much about the point of conception. Which is usually the mother being more "right", as men tend to bail the situation so they must be kept close.
Yeah its about permanent mother and part time to non-existent father. And there's hard evidence and scientific proof behind it. So you have to reign in the fathers. I'm not saying the boy shouldnt pay at all. Cuz you have to "teach a lesson" to horny youths. Just the woman deserves plenty of scorn and shaming her way than as being looked upon as some deserving mother. She shouldnt be allowed on any TV shows crying her eyes out how she was in an "in-between state of confusion in her life" or any of that crap. Granted no interviews or anything. But once you throw the kid in a shield, all scorn will be deflected. Also on the matter of scale: - Its just painfully obvious that bonds are supposed to be about adoration, and the women who are supposed to be the most loving are just as haphazard in these situations as the father is. - The scale to me is minors knocking up other minors or those within a small age range. An ADULT with much more know whether it be man or woman, whether the younger boy or girl consented or not, its just straight full on robbing the cradle. Its like kids running a lemonade stand, and an adult trying to haggle them for a better price and ripping them off.
As RR pointed out, the mother has the option to abort that baby or terminate her rights by giving it up for adoption so this proposition that the child's interests are preeminent is not valid.
It is valid, there are simply other considerations involved when a woman gets raped, as the decision to carry the baby for 9 months and to give birth to it also affects the physical and mental health of the woman. And if the woman feels unable to provide for the child it is also in the best interest of the child to allow the woman to give it up for adoption, as someone else will be able to take better care of him/her. So still, the child's interests come first except in the case of the unborn child's interest being weighed against the physical/mental health of the mother who was the victim of a rape.
