Dark Theme
SFW Mode

274,826 posts archived


[–][deleted]  (6 children)


    [–]TankVet 67 points68 points  (10 children)

    Adult rapes child. State gives custody of child to child molester/rapist. Forces rape victim to pay child support.

    What the fuck is happening in this country? She ought to be in prison!

    [–]EvrythingISayIsRight 19 points20 points  (3 children)

    She ought to be in prison!

    But... but... think of whats best for the kid!

    [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child)

    What's best for the kid is to be taught that you can't rape people and get away with it.

    [–]ThePedanticCynic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    The system has a different opinion.

    [–]2renzy77 178 points179 points  (13 children)

    A telling quote from the article:

    Feit said if the roles were reversed and the woman was the victim, the scenario would be unthinkable.

    "The idea that a woman would have to send money to a man who raped her is absolutely off-the-charts ridiculous," he said. "It wouldn't be tolerated, and it shouldn't be tolerated."

    [–]chillmonkey88 11 points12 points  (1 child)

    This stuck with me too... As a single dad who pays more than most... All I can ad is fear he felt is real. Foc is relentless... don't get me wrong I love my kid but the foc makes it really hard for me to advocate having more... All in all dont have kids.

    Source - single dad.

    [–]PlanB_pedofile 10 points11 points  (0 children)

    To make matters worse is they'll throw you in jail for your failure to pay up. But a woman who has 5 kids from 5 dads seems to be a fit parent.

    [–]RichieBooth 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    You're right, just actually imagine if me, as a 20-something year old, had dubiously consensual sex with a 14 year old girl, which was deemed rape at the time. Then years later demanded that that girl pay me money. It would be jailable to make contact.

    [–]Nyanza[🍰] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Were you raising the kid? No I guess you couldn't have been... If you tried to get custody of the 14 year old girl's child, you'd be put in prison.

    [–]VarsitySlutTeamCpt 89 points90 points  (95 children)

    Any feminist out there going to defend this man?

    [–][deleted] 78 points79 points  (4 children)

    Faaaakkk no... That icloud leak has them busy right now. Shouting.. "If you look at the pictures your a monster"

    [–]anonlymouse 16 points17 points  (3 children)

    They wouldn't ever, even without something to distract them.

    [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (2 children)

    True. Unless it directly helped them.. Maybe an author or MRA chick?.. But still they wouldn't.

    [–]anonlymouse 7 points8 points  (1 child)

    Oh, women might, sure, but feminists, never.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Oh!.. I was lumping them all in one group lol my bad. These.. Umm.. these things I've talking to lately have been nothing but ball crushing bitches. Even in passing. Eeeaa

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)


      [–]ThePedanticCynic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I didn't realize it was illegal for a woman to abandon a baby with no consequences or payments.

      Oh wait, it's not.

      [–]NoFatChicks88 18 points19 points  (4 children)


      the joke is that feminists love to claim they are for equality and giving attention to men's issues, but of course they never actually discuss anything, they just make the claim that they do.

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)


        [–]ThePedanticCynic 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        If feminists actually cared about equal rights 95% of their topics would be about men.

        The only legitimate problem i know of is that some women are paid about 5% less than an equal man. Then again, unmarried women with no kids aged 25-40 or so are paid 108% of an equivalent man.

        Instead they push women's issues like breast cancer (instead of cancer that affects everyone), that being fat is ok, and how birth control should be covered by health insurance.

        Basically, anything that costs them less, and men more, is what they want.

        [–]2niczar 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        They're too busy defending poor JLaw's honor.

        [–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor 99 points100 points  (22 children)

        Everybody needs to post this on FB. This is a golden opportunity to spread the word in a way nobody will be able to contest.

        [–]Modredpillschool[S] 87 points88 points  (11 children)

        In essence, this is a good thing, because we've now drawn attention to just how fucked up the "best interest of the child" concept is when applying it wholesale to hold men responsible for women's decisions.

        In this case, there is quite clearly a line that was crossed in the name of "best interest of the child," which is undeniably wrong-- and yet, is the exact same logic being used in every other case where a woman is free to make a decision that men will ultimately be held accountable for.

        If we can prove that "best interest of the child" is not a proper standard to hold random parties responsible for an irresponsible woman's actions, (including theft of sperm and rape), then the entire structure of moving resources from men to women starts to break down.

        [–]vaker 31 points32 points  (1 child)

        It's not the interest of the child. These laws protect the interest of the state. If men weren't forced to pay then the state would have to support the female and the child.

        [–]ThePedanticCynic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Which would then result in the state giving fewer handouts to deadbeat mothers. Feminists would then claim this infringes on the freedom of women to conceive, as they would then be unable to economically support a child that is their right to have.

        Jack Nicholson was right, it's really easy to write for a woman when you remove reason and accountability.

        Edit: clarification.

        [–]curious97 21 points22 points  (6 children)

        My opinion is that anyone who believes in "the best interest of the child at all costs" also has to be unequivocally pro-Life in order to not be committing a blatant lack of coherence.

        [–][deleted]  (4 children)


          [–]anonlymouse 15 points16 points  (2 children)

          You're right, but you capitalised the wrong part of the sentence.

          [–]anonlymouse 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          And keep in mind Orwell's Politics and the English Language - don't editorialise. This story speaks volumes for itself.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Shared, with the title "And they say we live in a patriarchy..."

          Let the games begin!

          [–]Gnashtaru 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          I posted it. No likes, but one share.. I know more people saw it but were too chicken to acknowledge it.

          At least it gets awareness out.

          [–]anonlymouse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          I'm at 2 comments, no shares. One comment from someone I expected, one comment from someone I didn't. Progress.

          [–]Manuel_S 5 points6 points  (3 children)

          We as men have a right to protest, morality and ethics is on our side, but really we should be ashamed of ourselves.

          They are doing nothing we didn't let, empower them to do and we wrote the fucking laws for it. They're way too nasty and far-reaching to be feminine work.

          [–]anonlymouse 8 points9 points  (2 children)

          Those laws were written when I was still a kid. So no, not we. But yes, still, men.

          [–]Manuel_S 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Yeah but all those "men should work at home like women blah blah" shit is from the newer generation.

          Fuck that.

          [–]anonlymouse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          There's hardly anyone my age in government, so still no.

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)


            [–][deleted]  (1 child)


              [–]AmazonExplorer 32 points33 points  (8 children)

              Utterly disgusting. This is why feminism is pure poison to society.

              [–]vaker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              There are many other reasons why feminism is pure poison.

              [–]RojoEscarlata 7 points8 points  (2 children)

              Exactly, feminism is an extreme left ideology born from over socialization, too much comfort which makes people complacent and lazy, we are in a decadence period in present times.

              It happened to China, to Greece, Rome, etc. And its happening now but not just to an empire, but almost world wide. It only goes down from here.

              [–]Mintaka7 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              Serious question, do we have good evidence that feminist-like ideologies happened in China, Greece, etc? The most popular cases are Rome and the USSR, as far as I've heard (and the western societies, of course).

              [–]RojoEscarlata 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Feminism is a product of social decadence in modern times.

              Decadence is what I'm saying killed those empires, not feminism.

              [–]love2fap 4 points5 points  (3 children)

              there are no great women leaders. women have contributed no major inventions. they make terrible decisions based on emotions.

              never leave a woman in charge.

              [–]Nebulose11 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              You need to study history a bit better. There are many women in the 150+ IQ range that have had an effect on society. 1/7th of intelligent people are women but most of them sit in the middle of the curve. Where as, we as men, fill in the high and low end of the bell curve, mostly.


              [–]love2fap 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              i read some of the info you linked. there were some good examples in there. thanks.

              [–]anonlymouse -1 points0 points  (0 children)

              Nefertiti and Cleopatra. But yeah, not since BCE.

              [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (2 children)

              Talk about statutory rape! They're raping him again!

              [–]ThePedanticCynic 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              Yeah, but now it's legal.

              Remind me again what rights men have that women don't?

              [–]BloomerL 26 points27 points  (16 children)

              I also saw this article and was considering posting it. I've been lurking here for a month or so and this is the first article that I've felt compelled to comment on. Some recent posts have highlighted the disposable nature of men and stories like this only confirm that notion.

              These men were technically still boys when they were taken advantage of by older women. The fact that rapists can extract payments from their victims is insane. Nick Olivas even has to pay interest and back payments from when he was 14. This poor guy was raped twice.

              [–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 27 points28 points  (14 children)

              Why isn't the mother in jail for RAPING a 14 year old boy? Oh right /r/pussypass

              [–]FortunateBum 25 points26 points  (5 children)

              The problem is the concept of child support altogether. Ethically, it doesn't make any sense because having the child is solely the woman's choice. A choice that is completely up to person A potentially sending person B to jail makes little sense, but that's our system!

              [–]EvrythingISayIsRight 14 points15 points  (0 children)

              And of course, the ultimate combo. I want to keep the baby and make you pay child support & alimony.

              [–]curious97 11 points12 points  (0 children)

              Ethically, it doesn't make any sense because having the child is solely the woman's choice. A choice that is completely up to person A potentially sending person B to jail makes little sense, but that's our system!

              absolutely. Either the man gets a say in abortion/not paying child support, or we punish abortion like murder.

              [–]anonlymouse -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

              I don't completely agree.

              If abortion is legal illegal, so the woman has to have the child, and the father doesn't want to take custody, then yes, some child support makes sense. But, in the best interests of the child means having them raised by the more wealthy parent, so the father should always have the option of taking primary custody rather than paying child support.

              [–]Golden-Sylence 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              But, in the best interests of the child means having them raised by the more wealthy parent

              I think you hit on a really good point here. If we say that the nurturing side of a woman's persona is a social construct, and that men are equally capable of being caring and nurturing, then does it not make sense to have the child be in the custody of the more financially stable parent? If we are eliminating gender, then does it not make sense to have the parent be the one that can better support the child and provide the things it needs?

              Or are we giving custody to the woman because she is more likely to be home to care for the kid in more personal ways? If so, then we are highlighting why the "wage gap" exists. In that women are home more often while men stay at work, and so explaining why they make less.

              I think that having custody go to the more financially stable parent is a golden idea. But it will never happen. And the reason has nothing to do with men not being able to raise children, or women being better at it. Its because men are viewed as potential pedophiles and rapists in this society. I really believe that apart from the idea that men are somehow less suited to caring for a child, this belief of mainstream society is what keeps the family courts from awarding custody to men.

              After all, what repercussions would the court face if they awarded custody to the father, only to have it be revealed that he ended up raping his daughter? The whole thing is a minefield anyways, family court definitely needs reform, but there are new problems that can definitely be created by the solutions to the current problems.

              [–]anonlymouse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              There have been several articles talking about female pedophiles released in short succession the past couple of days, all starting the same way. The climate has shifted. It won't be too long before most people are aware that women are pedophiles too, and then not much longer until they're aware that women are pedophiles at the same rate.

              [–]1TheReason13 20 points21 points  (0 children)

              This is becoming more and more common, I've read quite a few articles on the matter but it still leaves me speechless every time I come across this kind of utter moral decay. It seems to me that the media coverage on these matters emphasizing the lunacy of women actually getting away with it has not discouraged, but emboldened women to go out and commit these crimes with impunity.

              When I think nothing can surprise me anymore.

              [–]proudcunt 7 points8 points  (0 children)

              Guys, don't worry. Feminism is about helping men, too. I'm sure plenty of feminists will start to rally against this travesty.

              [–]Gelo_kinleM 41 points42 points  (21 children)

              The guy in question didn't fight the case. The logical conclusion would be to place a certain amount of blame on him for his situation. However, applying common sense he shouldn't have to defend himself given the circumstances. The underlying factor for this event, and how it played out is truly terrifying. Look at the other discussions tab and count how many feminist or pro-female subreddits are discussing the event. The answer is none.

              Remember folks, progressive thought always goes in one direction. It is only a matter of time before the rest country succumbs to complete and utter madness.

              [–]Modredpillschool[S] 102 points103 points  (5 children)

              Don't teach men to defend against rape, teach rapists to stop charging their victims for child support!

              [–]CombatEffective 4 points5 points  (4 children)

              This satirical comment should not be getting upvoted because it is stooping to the level of the SJW shame-logical-blame tactic. The comment above saying he did not fight the case and is thus partially responsible is entirely legitimate.

              [–]anonlymouse 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              It wouldn't have helped - even a convicted rapist still got child support money.

              [–]Toronomi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              It's called satire and can be a great tool to highlight a ridicilous line of thinking.

              [–]love2fap 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              i would also venture to say he should have reported the rape so that the statute of limitations does not run out(IANAL) and she would have been charged appropriately, then maybe file for sole custody and get child support from her.

              however its not in our genes as men, or in this case a young boy, to gripe and complain about free sex with a 17 year old girl while hormones are raging.

              [–]Nebulose11 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Arizona has no statute of limitations on statutory rape IIRC.

              He could just send her to jail. There is living proof of her raping a child.

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)


                [–]1independentmale 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                There is no way a 20 year old fucks a 14 y/o and doesn't end up a sex offender WHEN A FUCKING KID IS THE RESULT.

                If the 14yo is a girl, damn right they'll lock the "predator" male up.

                Since he was a boy, he can't be a rape victim. He probably wanted it. /s

                [–]sir_wankalot_here 7 points8 points  (7 children)

                However, applying common sense he shouldn't have to defend himself given the circumstances.

                That is not how the legal system works, and it has never worked like that. I am driving my car, and then run into your parked car and then drive away. I then decide to file a hit and run case again you. You recieve the summons and do not show up in court. Guess what, you will be paying to get my car fixed and what other damages my lawyer can dream up.

                [–]Donutmuncher 7 points8 points  (6 children)

                Except most people cannot afford lawyers. That's one of the reasons 99% of cases end up in pleas.

                The legal system is a farce.

                [–]sir_wankalot_here 4 points5 points  (5 children)

                A valid point, but the fact he failed to appear for the legal summons means he automatically loses the case.

                I did a google, law students are allowed to practice law under the supervision of an attorney in USA, other countries have similar laws. A smart law student will want to get some cases under his belt. And usually law profs are attorneys.

                Make some friends with law students. Often a law student will work harder then a licensed attorney because they want to learn. Sometimes in cases like this one it is better to get a lady lawyer. But before you decide, get a feel how the student views the case.


                [–]Donutmuncher 3 points4 points  (4 children)

                A valid point, but the fact he failed to appear for the legal summons means he automatically loses the case.

                Given the state makes sure it doesn't teach its slaves anything about the legal system in schools, this is not surprising. The guy probably read this and thought it was absurd (which it is) so trashed it in the bin.

                He could indeed make lawyer student friends, but he's probably too busy trying to keep up with his rent.

                [–]sir_wankalot_here -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

                Ignorance is a choice.

                Back in the olden days, there was this place called a library which was full of these heavy paper things called books. There was this other thing called a card catalog. You had to look up stuff in it, then walk possibly to another floor to find the right book.

                Point I am making is to find out if law students can practice law back in the old days might take an entire morning if you where lucky. With google I found out the same info in 30 seconds.

                What amazes me is despite the ease of access to information, general stupidity is increasing.

                Watch what 95% of people do while waiting for something. They gaze off into space like some herd animal. Or they are posting some nonsense on facebook.

                I am an uneducated hillbilly. But I would always keep a book in my pocket, and when I had a spare moment read a few pages. Or if I didn't have a book, the military taught me to keep a notebook and pencil in my pocket. I would write down my thoughts and ideas.

                Nowdays I have this amazing thing called a tablet. It can hold thousands of books, it has lots of notepads inside it. I can share ideas with people from all over the world. This devide is so cheap that almost anyone can afford to buy one. I marvel at this device.

                Ignorance is a choice.

                [–]Donutmuncher 9 points10 points  (1 child)

                Ignorance is a choice.

                And who trains these slaves 5 days a week 8 hours a day for the first 14-18 years of their lives? Government. It sucked out their innate ability to self-learn. Not to say that they are not responsible for their choices, but given their paths, it's not surprising. It's more surprising that people like you still manage to make it through.

                [–]Iupvoteforknowledge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                The education system....now that's a joke.

                [–]circlhat 7 points8 points  (0 children)

                Statutory rape victims don't often press charges it just doesn't make sense.

                For example if I sleep with a 14 year old girl , and she thinks its ok, are you really going to criticize her for not pressing charges.

                [–]anonlymouse 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                I'd wonder if he still has the option to pursue a case - in BC the statute of limitations starts ticking once you turn 18.

                [–]through_a_ways 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                The logical conclusion would be to place a certain amount of blame on him for his situation.

                Stop victim blaming, you fuhrer of faeces!

                [–]ktappe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                The real root of the matter is what you said at first: The guy didn't fight the case. Then you go off the rails blaming everyone but him for what happened.

                [–]robesta 9 points10 points  (1 child)

                The local press seems to be the only one that questions child support laws in America.

                [–]anti-mangina 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                From the comments, INSANE if true - RE: no statute of limitations on rape in AZ, he could go ahead and press charges for rape then get custody, right? oh....

                From my understanding, the Police told the victim they weren't going to pick up charges on her because it would de-stabilize the child's life, so...

                [–]jerrytheman1998 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                Same laws allowed my mother to kick me (15 at the time) and my dad out of the house, and then steal his gun safe full of his own fire arms, family heirlooms, and various other valuables. This is perfectly legal although she is not legally allowed to carry a firearm, and has never received training on how to maintain/handle one. This "justice" system is horribly flawed, and totally slanted for women to win. Enough with the god damn pussy pass in our courts.

                [–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                This quote is particularly telling:

                From April 2013 through March 2014, the state recouped just over $14 million in previously dispersed cash assistance through child-support payments.

                The state just revealed their attitude: that of a debt collector. Their goal is to "recoup" money otherwise paid out as welfare. There will never be justice for men if the state views us as a revenue stream.

                [–]chadeusmaximus 5 points6 points  (1 child)

                This needs to go to the Supreme court.

                [–]anonlymouse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Needs to get past chambers first.

                [–]through_a_ways 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                >Man forced to pay child support because he was raped.

                Good. The more shit hits the fan, the less people will be able to ignore it.

                [–]SenorPuff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                As much as I love the gun and business laws in my state, I'm embarrassed about this.

                [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

                Things will get mental, yes, but eventually enough people will get fucked over in all walks of life for them to start being represented in government etc.

                [–]dominant_driver 3 points4 points  (1 child)

                I feel that support payments should not benefit the parents in any way, form or manner. Both parents should be required to pay cash into a fund that benefits the child, and the child only, and that is administered by a third party. That will put a stop to this nonsense.

                [–]Wake_and_Poi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                Agreed. I worked at a generic service providing establishment, where we charged consumers about 90$ a month for our non necessity service. I spoke to countless mothers who had to wait for their child support to come in to pay their bill.

                All of my rage.

                [–]jupc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Kid, you can't afford not to have an attorney.

                [–]nmagod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Can we all just take a minute, sit back, and remember when Arizona passed a law because of the movie Splice?

                'cause that's a real thing that happened.

                [–]Meatclap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                I'm curious how this can also play out, if at all, in the abortion rights arena. Women get raped, statutorily or otherwise, they have the choice to abort what is essentially seen as the product of a rape. Now we see a young man not only forced to live with the embodiment of his violation, but pay for it personally and financially as ordered by the state.

                [–]1RXRob 1 point2 points  (4 children)

                If I could play Devil's advocate for just a second. If a woman bears a child from rape then isn't she responsible for it's upbringing?

                I understand that she has the option to abort, but it's a conception that she didn't want. It seems unfair that anybody has to take the financial burden on such a situation.

                [–]TheLawlessMan 1 point2 points  (3 children)

                "isn't she responsible for it's upbringing?" No. She can have the baby put up for adoption. Men don't have that option.

                [–]1RXRob -1 points0 points  (2 children)

                Adoption being one option for how best to raise a child.

                A man can walk away during pregnancy, a woman doesn't have that option.

                [–]TheLawlessMan 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                "A man can walk away" and right into a cop car whenever they happen to find him.

                [–]1RXRob 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                We're not in disagreement here. I'm just trying to see both sides instead settling into a comfortable "woe is us" mentality

                [–]beginner_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                The title is kind of misleading but I get the take-away message. If the gender roles were reversed he would be in jail and she would be the poor rape victim.

                Putting it on FB, don't really have the guts for it but even worse I doubt most would get it at all.

                He said he panicked, ignored the legal documents and never got the required paternity test. The state eventually tracked him down.

                Only time paternity test is mentioned. Was one done at all? If not he is a retard.

                [–]Ojisan1 0 points1 point  (10 children)

                We've been down this path before.

                The issue is that the child is also a victim, and in the logic of the law, the child's interests have to come before the woman's, or the father, who also is a victim in this case.

                Ultimately, someone has to pay for this kid's expenses. If the mother picks up the tab, she will appeal to the state for aid. The state would rather pass the bill along to the father than to pay it out of state coffers, even if the father himself was the victim of a crime.

                It sucks, but the law has its own infernal logic to it.

                [–]tallwheel 3 points4 points  (7 children)

                In this case, I'd rather see the state pay if the mother can't. The rape victim should have no responsibility for a rape baby.

                [–]Ojisan1 1 point2 points  (6 children)

                I am probably inclined to agree, but it's not clear cut. The child shouldn't suffer for the sins of the mother. Making the father pay means ultimately he could get custody and rescue that kid from his obviously-fucked-up mother. Even if the father's parents do a lot of the heavy lifting, it might ultimately be better for the kid than being the child of a single mother on the public dole.

                You can say it's a "rape baby" but the rape is done and over. The baby is just a baby, and shouldn't be just thrown to the wolves. Also, the state has no money of its own, so you're really saying everyone should pay. That's why this is so tricky.

                [–]anonlymouse 1 point2 points  (3 children)

                The child shouldn't suffer for the sins of the mother.

                Leaving the child in the hands of a confirmed pedophile is making her suffer.

                [–]Ojisan1 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                That's a good point, and is something that could be additionally litigated, but it's separate from the issue of the child having food to eat and a roof over their head. The state doesn't say "well, because the mother is evil, the father is free of obligation to the child." If anything, the father having a responsibility to pay for the child, also has the standing to sue the mother for custody, or perhaps to even put the child up for adoption, or whatever other remedy seems appropriate to him. The father also has a responsibility to press charges, if a crime was committed then that would be a further mark against the mother, and in that case the state might end up putting the child in foster care (which also might be abusive, so that's not necessarily the best thing either).

                It's a shitty situation all around, but the state is going to put its own interests first, and among the three individuals involved, the child's interests over those of the parents.

                [–]anonlymouse 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                The solution then is to give the father the option of custody.

                [–]Ojisan1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I agree. But he can't have the option of custody on the one hand, and no fiduciary responsibility on the other hand. One goes with the other.

                If the state were to say that the father did not have to pay child support, then the father would also probably not have much standing to try and claim custody away from the mother.

                Hopefully, given that the mother is a provable statutory rapist, that would weigh heavily in favor of reduced or no custody on her part.

                But then again, courts time and again seem to have a preference for at least trying to keep children with mothers, even if those mothers are truly unworthy. It's an uphill battle.

                [–]Ulquiorra_Schiffer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                Yes it should. Fuck that.

                I am firmly in support in the forced abortion for all children conceived due to rape!

                .. Clear sarcasm, obviously, but I hate the idea that the kid has rights that supersede actual adults. The way I see it, is it's a cop out. If you think it has rights, raise the little shit yourself, instead of leaving it with the horrible kind of person who would rape someone, or the person who is fucked up from being raped.

                [–]vaker 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                What you just explained is that the state's interests come first...

                [–]Ojisan1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Yes. And if you disagree, they have a nice cage they'd be happy to put you in, or they can just shoot you if you don't want to go.

                See: /r/Anarcho_Capitalism

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I really don't think this is going to hold up in court, not only was the man raped as a teenager but he did not know about his daughter for 6 years. While it's great to raise alarm about something like this happening, I'm sure this news source ate up this story to get some hits on their site.

                The sad thing is, not only is this guy getting absolutely screwed off going through a traumatic experience.. But the courts are allowing a CHILD PREDATOR RAPIST TO HAVE CUSTODY OF A CHILD.

                With that being said, would like to hear how this case turns out in the next few months.

                [–]DexiAntoniu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                American fuckers who consider themselves men, but at large accept this shit, making nobody fear no backlash, they deserve this society. I'm speaking generally.

                But this is unacceptable. What the... Weird...

                [–]VegasHostTre 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Best interest of the child? SHE RAPED A CHILD!

                [–]MysogynyIsFun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Feminists just turn around and blame this on "patriarchy".. Which means it is the fault of men. Nothing is ever the fault of women.

                [–]spankmyalpaca 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                This is fucking ridiculous... It is literally male oppression stemming from bullshit feminist propaganda. How a boy who was raped can be forced to pay child support for the child conceived during the rape is one of the most disgusting thing I've ever read. Exactly as they say, if this was the other way round and it was a young girl who was raped she would never in any circumstance even be even considered to be charged with child support payments

                This makes my blood boil, I'm literally shaking typing this I'm so angry

                [–]glottony 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Was this on /r/bestof or /r/news or was that just a dream?

                Want to download the post?
                Download PDF Download TXT