Am I being dim? You seem to be asking if a man who was raped has to pay child support... for what child?

The irony is - most "pro choice" people will say yes, citing the "interests of the child", as if that's any concern. Men and boys have no rights, only responsibilities.

How does a male get raped in such a way as to produce a child? Like anybody else, if he can prove rape in a court of law, then he doesn't have to pay child support.

I'm missing something here. The link you provided didn't have anything to do with a "male rape". This court case revolved around a couple who had a child through a surrogate using an anonymous egg and sperm. The husband of the couple then filed for divorce AFTER the embryo was implanted into the surrogate and said "there were no children of the marriage". Basically, after making all the legal arrangements for another woman to bear a child for him and his wife, this guy dumps his wife AFTER the other woman is impregnated. The child was born in 1995 and would now be 14 years old. How this case ultimately ended up would be interesting, as there are many convoluted issues here. The surrogate parents sought custody at one point, the husband of the couple who sought a child by a surrogate was deemed NOT obligated to provide support, the surrogacy contract viewed as "unenforcable". This link concerns an appeal of this case and seeks to have the wife of the couple (which sought to have the child through a surrogate) be declared the legal and natural mother and to hold the now ex-husband responsible as the legal father, and thus obligated to pay child support. Also, it seeks a redressing of the assessment that the surrogacy agreement was unenforcable. This appeal is dated October, 1997. I would be most interested in knowing the final resolution. In my opinion, this guy IS the legal father of the child and should be held responsible for his actions as such.

Obviously not. The law would never inflict such punishment on a girl. Making the poor kid a victim again and again would be criminally cruel and unusual punishment.

if got raped go poilice then they sort it out . and no he shouldnt if he got raped he shouldnt have to pay support

This sounds at first like a ridiculous question, but a female of legal age who "seduces" a minor male can, legally, be charged with statutory rape.... And if she should become pregnant,..no, the minor male is not held responsible in any way. I think we all know of the most publicized incident of this. That kid was damaged, though. It is foolish to say he wasn't. He was only twelve years old, for goodness sake! The woman was thirty something.

no.

No. Just as I believe a female rape victim should be allowed an abortion I think a male rape victim is not responsible for the child.

The DIFFERENCE that no one is picking up on is that this was "STATUATORY RAPE" . That means that he consented to have sex with this woman and was NOT forced as in regular Rape cases .... Therefore; since he CONSENTED to having the sex ; he is responsible for CHILD SUPPORT . There is NO trauma etc for him to relive ..he enjoyed himself and now he has to PAY for his Play ...

No I don't think so.

If he came doesnt that mean that he had to have enjoyed it?

If he was forcibly raped, no. Statutory rape, yes.

I agree with "The Chief" The case listed above in the question has nothing to do with a rape. As seen below: In People v. Sorensen (1968) 68 Cal.2d 280 our Supreme Court held that a husband was a "lawful father" of a child created by artificial insemination whom he was obligated to support where he consented to the procedure, during marriage, and actively participated in the acts which created the child. "The law is that defendant is the lawful father of the child born to his wife, which child was conceived by artificial insemination to which he consented." "...the term 'father'... cannot be limited to the biologic or natural father as those terms are generally understood." "a reasonable man who... actively participates ... in the hope that a child will be produced whom they will treat as their own, knows that such behavior carries with it the legal responsibilities of fatherhood... One who consents to the production of a child cannot create a temporary relation to be assumed and disclaimed at will.... it is safe to assume that without defendant's active participation and consent the child would not have been procreated."

noone should be forced to pay child support for a child there was not expressed commitment to... and inserting tab P into slot V is not expressed commitment, expressed commitment is both partners agreeing to raise children together. the woman has choices; abortion, adoption, heck in some states she can even drop an infant off at a police station no questions asked... as long as she has any of these choices he should also have the choice not to have his live irreparably altered by her choice to keep the child. however I believe since she has to carry and give birth to the child he should not be capable of forcing her to accept him in the childs life either.

Of course not - such a thing is absurd!

The gay guy who got raped in a London underground station was just on TV. he said that none of the seven guys that raped him have ever called him or sent him flowers. grin... And he's now brought a yearly season ticket.. grin..

Nope.

So, the kid has to write his rapist a check every month? How sick is that?

Did you even read the case? They paid for artificial insemination of a surrogate mother. That's not rape...twit.

If the perpetrator was found guilty of rape... Absolutely not.

The problem is this: absent alimony, which would clearly be ridiculous in this case, we are talking about child support which is the state-mandated leeching of money from Mr. Sperm Donor to his existing offspring. But since the offspring tend to be minors, the mother receives the money and there is no actual guarantee that any proceeds ever get to the baby in question. . The purpose of this is to legally make up for the fact that the child in question is deserving of two parents' worth of resources but only gets one. . The specific case we are talking about is a three-party problem where two of the people involved are innocent. But one of those two is not only innocent but also helpless. . This would be the part where I came to a Solomonaic judgment which would reveal the way forward. Too bad, I'm just not that good. . One idea that does come to mind is a trust fund such that any child support is placed in an account to accrue interest and is not available to the child until he is eighteen and has read a statement from the father regarding 'what happened'. This would benefit the child without technically benefiting the mother (although if she is aware of this she will likely be less inclined to save for her child's education). . Best I can do, and I know it's not good enough. Ah well, that's why they don't pay me the big bucks.

No.

No. By rights, the woman should lose custody of the child because she created it with the express purpose of punishing the ex husband. She is obviously an unfit mother. The State of California has no problem taking such children away from their parents, and in this case, I would agree with them.

The woman has to relive the fact she was raped for the rest of her life.

not if he was raped

It is very difficult to prove male rape.