2 ms·
"What's best for the child" is often the argument used there - since the child did not commit the rape, the argument goes, it shouldn't be punished for it. Not
by klipt 4y ago
"What's best for the child" is often the argument used there - since the child did not commit the rape, the argument goes, it shouldn't be punished for it.
Notably the same argument has been used to set the precedent that male rape victims are also compelled to pay child support to their rapists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
- lostmsu 4y agoThe case you linked does not support your argument. There the alimony decision was based on the rape victim giving consent from the standpoint of the civil laws which also govern parental relationships. That did not matter for criminal law because the victim was underage. Not that I agree with the court here, but it is completely different from what you described.
- klipt 4y agoThat's part of the logic (basically overriding the definition of statutory rape to be "not rape" if the underage child enjoyed it) But there are a bunch of similar decisions here: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3201&context=penn_law_review https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... And the common theme is just because the parent is raped, doesn't override the rights of the child. It's easy to see how that logic would be extended from child support to abortion.