Amazon.com Widgets

Should a rapist have parental rights to a child he fathered during a rape?

  • Of course he should

    If the baby is truly his he should be allowed parental rights. Whether he raped the woman or not is beside the point, he's still the father and should be allowed to see and interact with his child as such. I would hate to see a parent separated from their child for something so trivial.

  • A rapist is still the biological father

    In my opinion, how the child was conceived doesn't matter - our society gives parental rights to biological parents and he's still the biological father. You can't take someone's parental rights away just because they're a criminal. The child is still his so he should have full rights to it; mothers don't get more rights to kids than fathers in my opinion

  • Yes, but ideally the pregnancy should have been aborted.

    If a woman chooses to carry the baby to term, then as messed up as the situation is, the father does have some parental rights in the child because it was still his sperm. This is why women should be allowed and even encouraged to terminate the pregnancy if it resulted from something like rape.

  • I think he should if the mother wants him to, otherwise he should not.

    I think in some cases they should. It should depend on whether the mother wants financial support from the rapist and help in raising the child. In that case he should. But if the mother views future interaction with the rapist as making her uncomfortable, he should lose parental rights. Also, if the rapist has other problems besides the one rape, he should not have the right to see his child either.

  • Fathers have rights too

    Despite the knowledge that the rape victims suffered from the rapist actions, if the rapist is able and ready to pay child support and wants to be active in the child's life it is their right to do so. Should a mother believe that her child is in danger or that the rapist does not deserve parental rights, she can go to court to try and get them revoked. I believe the child is innocent and despite the rapist actions, he should be given the opportunity to be in the child's life unless he is not willing to or if it is believed he would be detrimental in the child's life.

  • No, he should have no rights.

    Punishment for rape should be strict, resulting in forfeiture of all rights, except the most fundamental ones. The right to parenthood, by its nature, dignifies the right-holder, which dignity a rapist does not deserve. However, a rapist should, as far as possible, be burdened with the financial obligations of parenthood. If he is unable to meet these, money should be recovered from the auction of his estate for the expenses related to the child's education etc.

  • Rapists Cannot be Fathers

    No, a rapist should not have parental rights to a child he fathered during a rape. Odds are the rapist did not enter into the act planning on impregnating his victim. Even though a child was conceived during the act, it was not a planned event arising out of normal circumstances. The violence of the fathers act negates any claim he might make as the child’s father. He should be banned from ever trying to make contact with the child or the child’s mother. His presence in their lives would serve no purpose other than to make the mother relive the nightmare every time he came around.

  • No law should ever be on the books that a rapist can use to continue to torture his victim.

    If there was an extenuating circumstance, like an 18 year old boy was caught having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, and the girl's family pressed charges making him a "rapist", then he will still be able to see his child because the girl would allow it.

    There is going to be a small percentage of men and women that are in this situation that aren't your typical - bad guy rapist story. For them, they can work it out between themselves, or not. But to put a law out there to protect this tiny minority of men that are labeled as a rapist but aren't, opens the door to the huge majority of actual rapists to use the law to continue to torture his victim for the rest of her life.

    If it was me, and I was raped, and the monster made himself part of the rest of my life due to this stupid law, I would find a way to kill him and get away with it - no question.

  • No law should ever be on the books that a rapist can use to continue to torture his victim.

    If there was an extenuating circumstance, like an 18 year old boy was caught having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, and the girl's family pressed charges making him a "rapist", then he will still be able to see his child because the girl would allow it.

    There is going to be a small percentage of men and women that are in this situation that aren't your typical - bad guy rapist story. For them, they can work it out between themselves, or not. But to put a law out there to protect this tiny minority of men that are labeled as a rapist but aren't, opens the door to the huge majority of actual rapists to use the law to continue to torture his victim for the rest of her life.

    If it was me, and I was raped, and the monster made himself part of the rest of my life due to this stupid law, I would find a way to kill him and get away with it - no question.

  • Never should they have rights to a child.

    No person that is capable of raping someone should be given the chance to raise a child. The victim should not have to be around this person neither should their child. Would you let your children spend time with a sex offender or rapist? It doesn't matter how they are related to the child.

  • Victimizing the victim for the next 18 years? --I don't think so!

    Forcing the victim to see her attacker, and allow him to have access to her child, is cruel. Rapists are criminals who get off on control, and this gives them a platform to continue torturing their victim. Will rapists one day be able to decide the fate of the child they helped conceive? I worry that they could likely argue that they have the right to force a victim to carry to term. Where's the line drawn?

  • Rapists raise rapists

    I think this is an obvious "No!" Do we want a rapist parent sexually abusing their kid, possibly only to further violate the original victim (mom). Do we want rapist parents raising their kids to believe rape myths or even teaching them to rape? The rape issue is partially a learned behavior, so I think that isolating children from rapists is a good idea. Also, this all serves to further traumatize the victim of the original rape. The purpose of ensuring rights for both parents to their children is to give children the support of both parents. The children aren't parents' property -- the purpose of custody laws isn't the "property rights" of parents, it's the well-being of children. Under no circumstance are children benefited by having a rapist in their life!

  • A rapist is not a father

    How is this even a question? This is like women being forced to marry their rapist, it's ridiculous, psychologically scarring, and should never be allowed to happen. How can we have a society so against rape, yet our laws protect the rapist and punish the victim? It is NEVER the woman's fault and should never be treated as such. Anybody, man or woman, should be allowed to walk naked down the street and not be told they were asking for it unless they have a sign on them saying 'rape me'. Allowing rapists to have parental rights is rewarding them for an abominable act. Children are a privilege, not a right.

  • Rapists don't deserve any rights.

    He took away the women's rights when he raped her. Why should she feel obligated to let him ruin her child. Who wants a child around a rapist. In 2006 Amanda Berry had a child with her kidnapper and rapist Ariel Castro. In 2013 after Amanda, Gina and Michelle were freed from the Cleveland house where they were kept for ten years as sexual prisoners Castro asked to see his daughter Jocelyn while he was in court. He denied those girls their rights to see their families for 10 years. He should not have any rights. Thankfully he was not allowed to see Jocelyn and in February 2014 a new law was passed in Ohio taking away a rapists right to see their dale result. After doing what he did he doesn't deserve any rights. Same thing with other rapists.

  • Is this even a question?

    No, he should be in jail and kept far away from women and children. He's a sexual predator and has no business doing anything but serving time. When he raped her, he had no interest in being a father, or being a good person - he was interested in feeling powerful and making her suffer because he is a disgusting piece of subhuman garbage.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.