Rapist wants visitation rights; teen mom fighting back

[Liberal_in_LA]

An admitted Massachusetts rapist is seeking visitation rights to the child he fathered after raping his underage victim, setting the stage for a precedent-setting legal fight in the Bay State.

The victim and her family are fighting back, saying the rapist is only showing interest in the family now that the child support bill is coming due.

"She got raped at 14. She decided to keep her baby. And now she has to hand her baby over for a visit with her rapist?" the victim's mother said.

The teen mother, who still suffers from severe anxiety and depression, says she's terrified at the thought of having to face the man who raped and impregnated her to arrange for visitation rights.

---------

It happened when she was in eighth grade, just 14-years-old. He was a 20-year-old man she knew from her church, the boyfriend of her friend's older sister.

When her mother found out, they went to the police to press charges. But she decided to keep the baby.

Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/19628763/2012/09/24/rapist-wants-visitation-rights-teen-mom-fighting-back#ixzz27bQ1H8mu

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Well, it's clear she is anti-abortion and now she will pay the consequences

for keeping her rapist's baby based on religious beliefs and not knowing the difference between an embryo and a baby. Now, based on that same Christian belief, she must also find it in herself to forgive the rapist and allow him to have visitation rights.

This brings to light another glaring problem when Republicans are trying to make abortion illegal: the dilemma regarding legal visitation rights of the rapist.

[antigone382]

7. That is an appalling attitude.

She was fourteen when this happened to her. She made a personal decision to keep the child. Who knows how much pressure she was under from her parents, and how much she had to cave to that pressure given her dependence on them at one of the most vulnerable points in her life. The article says nothing about her attitude towards abortion laws, only that she personally could not bring herself to have an abortion based on her personal attitudes towards her own fetus.

She has suffered enough "consequences," she is under no obligation to forgive anyone, much less allow them access to her child, and the idea that a woman's personal reasons for deciding to continue a rape-induced pregnancy justify her "paying further consequences" is nothing short of disgusting.

[BlueCaliDem]

16. Um, "she made a personal decision to keep the child" followed by "Who knows how much pressure

she was under"?

You're twisting yourself in pretzels trying to defend this. That's what's disgusting.

[Care Acutely]

29. I don't really care. She shouldn't be forced to co-parent with her rapist. Period.

There are multitudes of reasons why the decision too keep the child may have been made. None of them are your business. That's why it's called CHOICE. You may not like her choice but it was hers to make.

NOBODY, no woman, no child, should be forced to carry OR co-parent the product of a rapist.

[BlueCaliDem]

68. Sorry. But the law says differently.

And I thought we were a nation of laws, even though they're disgusting to you.

[Whisp]

107. what gross thoughts you have

a few buckets full.

sheesh.

[BlueCaliDem]

113. Maybe,

but unlike yours, mine are objective, not emotional.

[Whisp]

125. what bullshit.

there are some things to get emotional about and not be a wooden Romney Bot.

ugh. disgusting.

[Zygoat]

162. it's a mistake to play God

what rights to visit does a rapist have? If he had been convicted, would it be different?

[LiberalFighter]

167. How many times in history have we had laws that were wrong?

The law should be changed so certain groups of fathers are banned from receiving visitation. With the option of being reinstated via the courts. Maybe it should also require the approval of the mother.

Regardless of whether the father/mother receives visitation they are still required to pay child support. Only in extreme situations does child support cease because of visitation not being allowed.

[stevenleser]

135. That should be the law of the land. Rapists do not get custody to the product

of rape, nor do they get visitation rights, Period.

[aquart]

180. Considering he raped her when she was underage, why is anyone allowing him near a child?

[11 Bravo]

44. So you're in favor of "choice" only when you agree with the decision?

This may be one of the more cringe-worthy and appalling posts I've ever read on DU.

[MADem]

59. I agree with you completely. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

116. No. That's what you made of it.

This, and the many others, are the most irrational, most bitter, and most hateful posts I've ever read on DU, too.

People see the word RAPE and all sorts of frightening images pop before their mind's eye, never asking why a supreme court judge would hand down such a soft ruling in this case of rape, based on the evidence before him. Perhaps people should take a breath, step back, and look at the case objectively, not emotionally.

As I read the article, it appears that this is a statutory rape case brought on by the mother, and although the scumbag is a rapist of the statutory kind, I don't believe it was rape of the heinous kind (i.e. the violence against women kind).

[bevb]

124. Rape is rape

Period. I thought we already had this discussion on here? So it was only statutory rape? Good Grief!

[obamanut2012]

142. A 14-year-old kid was raped by an ADULT man

Not a sixteen-year-old. It was rape. Period. Acting like it wasn't is appalling.

And, to make it like her mother was enacting revenge in some way, instead of having her child's rapist arrested, is shameful.

[obamanut2012]

141. this -- and how much choice does a raped kid have

[antigone382]

47. Legally, it was her decision. No one could force her to keep or not keep the child.

However, considering the pressure she received from her parents as a young teenager may well have induced her to make that decision rather than isolate herself from her primary means of support during one of the most vulnerable periods of her life.

I'm not defending anything except the right of this girl not to suffer further sociopathic abuse at the hands of her rapist, regardless of her choice to keep or abort her pregnancy.

[uppityperson]

104. She made a choice and possibly was under pressure. How is that twisting or disgusting to acknowledge

that?

You think it is "disgusting" to wonder what pressure a pregnant teen might be under when pregnant? You think that is defending something?

[cthulu2016]

11. This horrifying post is like a RW parody of liberal position

[BlueCaliDem]

18. No. Keeping the product of your rapist while justifying it as a "baby"

is like a Rightwinger would think.

Liberals are smarter than that.

[cthulu2016]

27. WTF are you talking about? The "baby" doesn't need to be justified as anything.

I consider an early term zygote to be a part of the woman's body that she is free to remove as casually as a mole. (And I am an absolute atheist.)

I also think that if a 14 year old girl has the right to chose to abort then she must have the right to not abort or else it wouldn't be a fucking choice.

And she has a right to religious views, if she has any.

And she does not need to "justify" her choice to think of her body as she thinks of her body.

And your snide denigration of her choice is not how liberals think. Ask one sometime.

[Jim Lane]

35. As a juror who voted to leave #18 alone, I completely agree with your criticism of it.

We have no basis for making an assumption about the rape victim's thought processes. I concluded that the post doing so didn't violate the ToS but it was clearly wrong-headed.

[MADem]

60. Well, the TOS has this paragraph in it that might work in this instance.

One more thing: Don't push your luck.
The DU Community Standards state: "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." Members who demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior over time and end up getting too many of their posts hidden by the jury (measured by raw number or percentage) may be found to be in violation of our Terms of Service. If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck.

I think this particular twisting and perversion of the meaning of "choice" makes DU suck "Big Time," myself.

[BlueCaliDem]

71. Unless the baby appeared miraculously and fully developed

in the womb, it started out as a microscopic fertilized egg. She, herself, justified keeping it because it was a BABY. Her own words. In your anger, you must have missed that part in the article. Maybe less rant and more reading would have helped you there before you went on the attack.

I believe she has the right to choose to abort or not to abort, too. See? Just like you, I'm pro-choice.

I never claimed she has no right to her religious views - and if you read the article, which is painfully clear, you hadn't - she does have religious views. By her own admission, she's Christian. Again, that's in the article.

No, she doesn't have to justify her choice, but she clearly had. READ THE ARTICLE ALREADY.

And after you calm down and get a clearer perspective, you'll see that your snide denigration of my opinion, and that without even having read the article, is clearly not how Liberals think.

So keep your WTF's in your pocket and read the damned article already.

[NotThisTime]

28. Are you saying that this living breathing creature is not a baby?

Who are any of us to tell that 14 year old girl what to do with HER body. It's her body, she did not consent to what happened to her, the sperm donor dominated that part of the conversation. If a girl of any age wants to bring to term the embryo that is implanted in her that becomes her child at birth, I assume she made this choice with the help of her doctor and family. That is her right to do so, and no god damn rapist should ever be allowed to lay his damn eyes on her or that child. End of Story.

[BlueCaliDem]

72. Ugh

Please read the article.

I'm pretty sure before the child was born it started out as a fertilized egg, no? And it took nine months to develop. No? Of course the living, breathing creature is NOW a baby, but rationally speaking, it wasn't when she made the choice to not abort, was it?

Her own words:

"Being Christian, the way I looked at it, the way I thought of it, this is a baby, an innocent person that didn't do anything wrong. Like, why should I take away that life?" she said.

[TheMadMonk]

170. Hate Christians much?

Just how many ways are you going to say? "She made her choice based on her Christain beliefs, and now she must live with the consequences."

You've also strongly implied she's a hypocrit, because she's not forgiving her attacker as a Christian properly should.

[uppityperson]

172. How old was the fetus when she decided to not abort? Since you obviously know more than any of us.

[ornotna]

53. So true n/t

[fishwax]

62. indeed n/t

[Lilyeye]

82. I was thinking the same. What a crude and heartless post.

No different from a nutty right winger.

[dsc]

13. there is no dilema

when a man is convicted of raping a woman he should lose parental rights to any children the woman and he may share. Criminals lose rights all the time this is not exactly rocket science. Oh, and I thought you were pro choice but you apparently aren't. You only feel people who make the choice you would have made are entitled not to be punished.

[BlueCaliDem]

24. Yeah, it's a dilemma and I know as much about this as you.

Gleaning from the girl's own comment, ""Being Christian, the way I looked at it, the way I thought of it, this is a baby, an innocent person that didn't do anything wrong. Like, why should I take away that life?" she said.

For the record, I am pro-choice. But I'm a staunch believer that with choice comes responsibility and no one should get a free ride based on the choices they make.

And try not to make it personal, dsc. First, you don't know me and second, it's beneath you.

[MADem]

31. You're pro-choice? I'm reading that you don't respect the choice of this young woman in your posts

in the slightest.

I think you're not pro-choice at all--or you don't understand the meaning of the term.

The choice is not YOURS to make--it's that young woman's choice.

I don't think anyone is making anything "personal" here--it's that your comments are appalling, that's what the issue is.

[BlueCaliDem]

39. Yeah. I'm pro-choice, not that it's any of your or anyone else's business.

But I'm also pro-responsibility. And I don't lose my right to my opinion just because I'm "pro-choice", even (or especially?) on DU.

I never claimed that the choice was mine to make. YOU did. I'm opining that with choice comes responsibility. If you want to go the Christian route, go the Christian route all the way. Don't cherry-pick or risk losing credibility.

Try not to make it personal, which you and others are doing. You can simply state my comment is appalling and we can discuss why without targeting me personally. Don't know what I mean? Have a look below:

Here's one from the poster I responded to: Oh, and I thought you were pro choice but you apparently aren't.

This isn't about me. It's about the discussion of this topic.

Here's yours: I think you're not pro-choice at all--or you don't understand the meaning of the term.

Why make it personal? Disagree with me, have an opinion, but don't go after my character, which is the essence of making it personal. I hope I clarified that for you.

[antigone382]

52. What does rapists having access to children have to do with responsibility?

It should be the responsibility of the state to ensure it doesn't happen.

End of story.

[BlueCaliDem]

70. True. But the state has ensured it isn't the end of this story.

"Why was this case sent to family court? This isn't a family situation. This is a criminal situation," Murphy said.

Murphy believes the problem stems from the sentence imposed by Judge McGuire in the criminal case.

"The consequences of sentencing this man to probation for 16 years, which is really until the child becomes an adult, and making him declare paternity and pay child support, includes that this guy gets a legal father-child relationship out of the deal," Murphy said.

Murphy has filed a motion with the court, asking the judge to amend the sentencing conditions and order the man to pay restitution instead of child support, which would force him to support the child he fathered but not give him visitation and other parental rights.

Now the girl's attorney has to file a motion to change the wording from "child support" to "restitution".

[MADem]

57. If it's not anyone's business, then stay out of threads that discuss the topic, and don't make

declarations that put your assertions into question.

You'd best not "try to make it personal" -- but wait, you already did with your specious name-calling of this young woman and your pretty disgraceful and shameful questioning of her motives.

I am not "targeting you personally." If I were, I'd call you personally insulting names or question your parentage or do the myriad other things that childish people do on the internet. I am discussing the topic and telling you that your ideas and your logic SUCK. Don't talk trash, like claiming to be "pro-choice" while denigrating the choice of this young woman, and people will be less likely to challenge you on your sloppily crafted assertions.

You clearly do NOT understand what pro-choice means, and you've proven that with your very own ill-advised words. That's not personal in the slightest, that's just fact.

I hope I clarified that for you.

[Tsiyu]

64. You said what I was gonna say!

This is a very harsh, unrealistic, demonizing attitude this poster has.

Shameful really.

Thanks for calling it.

[BlueCaliDem]

73. Right. And MA's posts are all pink elephants and lemonade.

Oh, but I guess it's because that poster sees it the way you do that it's okay for them to be very harsh, be unrealistic, and have a demonizing attitude, right?

Shameful really.

I'm happy to call it.

[MADem]

99. You are more than welcome.

No means no. Choice means CHOICE.

There should be no question in this century that women have control over their own bodies and biological functions. It's appalling to me that there's any "subtext" happening on these matters in this day and age, particularly here on DU.

[BlueCaliDem]

69. Wow. What an inclusive DUer you are.

Again, reread the posts if you dare, and see that I didn't make it personal. Ya'll did. Own up to it or risk looking like a bloviating coward.

My opinion might suck to you, but I promise I won't lose any sleep over it. I stand by what I say. You wanna be a good Christian and carry the product of your rapist - VOLUNTARILY - to full term. Fine by me. But don't go wailing when he decides he has rights under law when it's born. Unfortunately for you, the court sides with me, not you.

By the way? Nothing you wrote was fact. Just opinion. And that's a FACT, too.

I hope I clarified that for ya.

[MADem]

95. I don't have a problem with reading comprehension. You do. One of two things is happening here.

Either you are articulating yourself poorly, or you have a warped, one-way definition of the meaning of "choice." By your comments, the latter hypothesis is the supported one. You also have a rather singular definition of the term "opinion" that is not shared by the rest of the world.

Your comments are both reprehensible and indefensible, and I see I am not alone in noticing. And--like it or not--that, too, is "fact."

I hope I clarified that for ya.

[BlueCaliDem]

106. Naw. I'm articulating myself just fine.

I can't help it if the red haze blinding you stops you from reading my posts with rational thought.

I have a very good definition and understanding of the meaning of choice. You, apparently, believe it's a one-way street, and because the girl decided to do the noble thing and keep the child, that absolves her of all responsibility that comes with that choice, in your not so humble opinion. How horribly skewed of you.

My comments are just fine. You just don't like'em, but they're not nearly as reprehensible or indefensible as yours, and many of your fans, have been toward me. So off that pedestal you go! **boot**

I hope I clarified that for ya . . . again.

[MADem]

117. You carp about getting personal, and then you assume I have a "red haze" because

I'm calling your comments what they are--despicable.

Your definition of choice is bogus, your insinuations about this young woman are unprogressive, and your conduct on this thread is shameful. All the childish snark in the world on your part can't change what you actually said.

By your words you are known. Your words fail the smell test.

I hope I clarified that for ya . . . again.

[uppityperson]

101. You say you've a 20 yr old. When you were pg did you call her your "product of sex"?

Or "product" of anything?

[BlueCaliDem]

108. Nope. As a Christian, married for 11 years, and nearly 30, I called her my baby.

Had I been raped, fourteen, and unmarried to the guy, it would have been deemed a "product of rape", and I would have never kept it. I mean, were I truly raped and not statutorily, that is.

[uppityperson]

109. And are you now projecting those feelings, emotions, thoughts, on to this 14 yr old? I see that is a

problem here.

Because she chose differently than you may have, you are speaking of her in a negative fashion. That is what I find offensive with what you write.

And now it seems you are questioning whether or not she was "truly" raped as she chose differently than you may have.

[BlueCaliDem]

112. Please

keep your psychological assessment of me out of it. Again, this isn't about me. This is about this case.

The judge wasn't convinced that this was a rape in the ugliest sense of the word. It appears as if he based his strange sentencing on the belief that it was statutory rape. It appears that the relationship between the girl and the guy had been consensual until Mother found out and pressed charges. I can't see why the judge would otherwise rule the way he had, and neither can Ms. Murphy, the girl's attorney.

Is the guy wrong? Abso-effing-lutely! Let me make that perfectly clear. He should've kept his g-d hands off a fourteen year old even if she had thrown herself on him naked. He should have known better and walked away. I believe the girl fancied herself attracted to him once upon a time, but he played in on her and that makes him scum to me.

When I was raped, I was too young to get pregnant, but I know from myself that had I been the girl's age, I would NOT have wanted to keep the product of my rape. No-effing-way. This is why I'm questioning whether it was the mother or the daughter who wanted to press charges. The article claims it was the mother who started this, stating, "when the mother found out, she pressed charges". That's why I'm questioning it.

You don't like my opinion, but I'm attempting to approach this from an objective p.o.v., not an emotional one.

[B2G]

122. Lol. Now you're channeling Akin.

"The judge wasn't convinced that this was a rape in the ugliest sense of the word. It appears as if he based his strange sentencing on the belief that it was statutory rape. It appears that the relationship between the girl and the guy had been consensual until Mother found out and pressed charges. I can't see why the judge would otherwise rule the way he had, and neither can Ms. Murphy, the girl's attorney."

[uppityperson]

140. Your derision of this person is about you. This bit from the article counters your "not truly" rape

bit. It also counters your assertion, in agreement with the man's, that it was consensual. And the only bit about consensual that I see, other than of course the man's assertion, is that it was consensual with the girl's friend's older sister.

"He threatened me. He told me that he could make my life upside down, and I wouldn't have anybody and he would pin it all on me. So I was scared."

Here is a bit more. Does it still sound consensual? "tormenter" is consensual?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/rapist-wants-visitiation-with-child-borne-by-teen-victim/?test=latestnews
The teen mother was raped by the 20-year-old family friend three years ago and says she still suffers from severe anxiety and depression. She says she is terrified at the prospect of having any dealings with her tormentor

You give me snideness "Please keep your psychological assessment of me out of it. Again, this isn't about me" then go on to your own psychological assessment of the judge and the girl. Oh. Kay.

You've made your point clear.

[noamnety]

163. I can't follow your logic.

keep your psychological assessment of me out of it. Again, this isn't about me. This is about this case.

...

When I was raped, I was too young to get pregnant, but I know from myself that had I been the girl's age, I would NOT have wanted to keep the product of my rape. No-effing-way. This is why I'm questioning whether it was the mother or the daughter who wanted to press charges.

You don't like my opinion, but I'm attempting to approach this from an objective p.o.v., not an emotional one.

1. It's not about my emotional reaction.
2. Let me tell you about my emotional reaction.
3. My emotional reaction is the reason I'm questioning the case.
4. Quit saying my response is a personal emotional one. It's clearly objective.

[uppityperson]

165. Yup. That is it in a nutshell. Thank you. nt

[REP]

131. Only Christians can be "truly" raped; others are just irresponsible hussy-sluts, right?

What's that I see in your eye? A beam?

[obamanut2012]

143. .....

[stevenleser]

152. So, according to you, there is 'rape rape', and then there is 'rape-esque' or 'rapeish' ?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-2-2011/rape-victim-abortion-funding?xrs=share_copy

[obamanut2012]

159. And, nonconsensual rape where the victim is threatened isn't really rape

Even if it's an adult man raping a very young teen, because... we are a nation of laws.

[stevenleser]

160. Yes, and if you will excuse me, I need to unknot my brain after trying to follow that person's logic

[obamanut2012]

161. I know -- I need an Excedrin

[uppityperson]

166. A 20 yr old threatened, had sex with a14 yr old who's still very depressed.This isn't "truly" rape?

The boyfriend of a friend's older sister threatened and fucked her and said it was consensual. "The teen mother was raped by the 20-year-old family friend three years ago and says she still suffers from severe anxiety and depression. She says she is terrified at the prospect of having any dealings with her tormentor"

This isn't "truly" rape? Seriously?

[Zygoat]

168. you're a Christian?

can you forgive these people in their very real story, for now not wanting that man in their lives?

[BlueCaliDem]

75. Do you feel better now? eom

[xmas74]

93. Once again,

I wish I could individually recommend posts.

[MADem]

97. Why thank you! nt

[M_M]

63. BCD, you've been here way longer than my newb ass

But, in my oh-so-humble opinion, you're behaving like a troll in this thread. (I know: banned in 5, 4, 3, 2...)

[bettyellen]

148. most people of "faith" are of the "cafeteria" sort, and you are not the boss of this kid!

She doesn't have to forgive anybody for anything. That's patently ridiculous. She doesn't owe you me or anyone anything. No more or less than any atheist or Jew. See how that works?

Your post is sitting in cruel judgement regarding the very difficult choice this girl was forced to make.

Shame on you.

[surrealAmerican]

40. "Free ride?"

What do you mean by that? Just how is raising a child when you're only a kid yourself a free ride? The girl is not asking for a "free ride". She's asking for her baby and herself not to have to have contact with a rapist.

[DevonRex]

132. Why do you expect a child to think like an adult?

One day, when she's a woman she might agree. Right now she thinks like her parents and her minister.

[Starry Messenger]

14. Your post makes DU seriously suck.

Hope you don't have daughters.

[BlueCaliDem]

19. I have one. 20. I don't speak for her. I speak for myself

and what I would do in a similar situation. I would have had the traces removed. Oh, and just in case you didn't know (and I'm sure you don't) I have been raped. Clear?

[Starry Messenger]

23. "Traces" ugh.

[NCTraveler]

30. Your need to remove the choice for and judge others on that choice is appalling. nt.

[BlueCaliDem]

34. ??? Whut? eom

[Tsiyu]

65. The poster is saying that you are in effect saying the choice to give birth

is not a valid choice, that once one makes that choice one should be demonized and should "suffer the consequences" by having to deal with the rapist on his terms.

You are wrong here.

You may need to come to terms with your own issues before you come to DU and attack a rape victim because she chose to have the child that resulted. And it's WAY too late to tell us all that your "feelings" or pro-choice or anti-choice stance, or your unresolved anger or whatever is "none of our business." You've made it our business, by attacking a young woman who is not here to defend herself.



Your posts in this thread are disgusting.

[BlueCaliDem]

74. Then the poster

and YOU are missing the point entirely.

I have no unresolved anger, and if you read my posts and compare it to the others, you'll see it. Or won't. I really don't care.

But I do care when you misread what I wrote. The poster, and you, are wrong if you believe that I'm "in effect" saying that the girl's choice to not abort is not a valid one. I never made such a claim. That's what you're making of it and that's disgusting.

[Tsiyu]

90. your very first statement

"Well it's clear she is anti-abortion and now must pay the consequences"


Your words.

She didn't stop anyone else from having an abortion, she chose to carry a child to term. She should not be punished for her choice, as you suggested initially.

[BlueCaliDem]

110. That doesn't invalidate her choice, and I did NOT claim such a thing.

That's what you're making out of it.

The gist of the post was, with a choice as big as what she made, a life-altering choice, comes grave responsibilities. If you're anti-abortion because of whatever views you hold, even in a case of rape (I believe this is more of the statutory kind) this legal debacle can be the consequence of it.

You're correct. She shouldn't be punished for her choice to keep the baby, but unfortunately for her, that's exactly what's happened in the highest court of MA, and now she's facing the prospect of having to see the baby's father to arrange visitation times.

If her attorney's motion fails and she can't get the court to reword "child support" into "restitution", then she'll have to make peace with the guy's choice to demand visitation rights. Is it morally right? No. But it's the law, and it's the consequence of deciding to keep the child of her rapist.

I believe she should call his bluff. I doubt he'll want visitation rights. He just doesn't want to pay child support and is hoping to bully her. With this media attention, I doubt he'll go through with it and just pay what he owes the child.

[NCTraveler]

129. Nothing was misread. Maybe it was poorly written.

Your comment was sick.

[MADem]

119. +1.

I think this poster is "having a laugh," as Ricky Gervais would say.

Thing is, it's not at all funny.

[obamanut2012]

146. 100% agree with this

[Zoeisright]

61. Yeah. That's why it's called "choice".

The young lady in question made another choice, but you choose to denigrate her. Clear?

[BlueCaliDem]

77. Yeah, choice.

Like you choose to attempt to denigrate me. Do you really want to go around and around with this?

[obamanut2012]

144. Your empathy and compassion for fellow rape victims is mindblowing

[MADem]

58. +1,000,000! nt

[lapislzi]

15. What?

You know NOTHING about this person.

Being raped, choosing to keep a pregnancy, and forgiving one's rapist have nothing at all in common.

She did not choose to be raped. She chose to bear the child for reasons that are none of anybody's business.

And, if she wants to keep the criminal away from her child, I think she should have that option. He is, after all, a sex offender who raped a minor. The law likes to keep them away from children.

[BlueCaliDem]

32. I know as much about this person as you do. Keep that in mind, will ya?

I know she's a Christian. I know she made a conscious choice to keep the product of her rape, based on her Christian believe that "it's a baby" at conception.

And if her choice isn't anybody's business, why go public?

As for the law:

The Norfolk prosecutor asked for a three to five year prison sentence. But Superior Court Judge Thomas McGuire sentenced him to 16 years of probation with the condition he acknowledges he's the father of the baby and abide by the probate and family court.

The probate court ordered him to pay child support, opening the door for him to request visitation rights with the child.

That, too, is the law. Choices have consequences.

[lapislzi]

38. Yes. When you choose to rape someone, that has consequences too.

When you choose to rape a 14-year-old, you choose to become a sex offender. That doesn't go away.

He committed a crime. She did not.

Both people are experiencing permanent consequences of their choices. But why should she be punished in perpetuity for choosing to bear a child?

[BlueCaliDem]

43. Agree completely. Thank you for not making it personal or about me.

Both people are experiencing permanent consequences of their choices. But why should she be punished in perpetuity for choosing to bear a child?

Bearing the child of her RAPIST. Let's not forget that all-important point of the discussion because that makes the difference.

You should be asking Superior Court Judge Thomas McGuire why she's being punished in perpetuity for her choice. He was the one who sentenced the rapist to only sixteen years of probation with the condition he acknowledges he's the father of the baby and abide by the probate and family court. It was most likely based on the girl's choice to keep the baby (and therefore he didn't believe it was rape at all), but it was a bad ruling. Unfortunately, it's from the state's highest court. So, the judge, not me, is punishing the girl. I'm just opining.

[lapislzi]

86. Gotcha, and you're right.

Family court. That's a joke right there. Where's the "family" in this scenario? The teenage girl, her child, and her parents. That's the family. And then there's the criminal.

[uppityperson]

96. "I know she made a conscious choice to keep the product of her rape" is the problem here. Not that

the law has a problem but that "I know she made a conscious choice to keep the product of her rape" and "if her choice isn't anybody's business, why go public?"

She went public because of the law. Perhaps to let others know of this law and to protest it. Not to have people say "keep the product of her rape".

Yes, she chose to not have an abortion. Do you know at what point she discovered she was pregnant? Excuse me, had a "product of her rape"?

That phrase is offensive. I will not call you names but wanted to point out that that phrase is very offensive. Even for me who has worked with raped women and pregnant women who do not wish to be pregnant and those who do.

[Bad_Ronald]

17. I didn't think I'd read any other posts on DU this week that could top the ones excusing

Ahmadinejad's virulent homophobic bigotry in terms of sheer revulsion...until I read yours. Congrats.

[BlueCaliDem]

26. Oh. Ok. So people believing others should take personal responsibility for their CHOICES

fills you with revulsion? Strange.

[Bad_Ronald]

33. No, the presumptuous, disdainful & haughty attitude you've shown towards this juvenile rape victim

is what I find revolting. Don't pretend that you're merely trying to advocate personal responsibility when what you actually did was condemn this poor girl for presumably not possessing the same stance on an issue that you have....as if you could know something like that anyway.

[BlueCaliDem]

45. Why do you have to make it a personal thing? Did I take your lunch money in Jr High or something?

I'm not pretending advocating personal responsibility. It's what I'm actually doing.

Again, people have free will and the right to choose, but with that choice comes responsibilities. Either you decide they're worth taking on when you consider a choice, or you don't.

[antigone382]

55. OK, how about this?

A woman's choice regarding what she does with her own body should not leave her, or any defenseless children she may choose to have, vulnerable to enforced contact with her victimizer. Ever.

Rapists should be held financially responsible for the well-being of any children that result from their attacks, but should suffer the consequences of being denied access to those children. Always.

A woman's choice to keep a pregnancy should not be impacted by the "responsibility" of interaction with her attacker, any more than a woman's choice to end a pregnancy should be impacted by the prospect of a forced transvaginal ultrasound. Both practices are a grotesque violation of women and a de facto proscription of the options available to them.

[Tsiyu]

66. You're far more diplomatic than me

But you are spot on.

If we ask a thief to pay reparations to the victims from whom he or she stole, we don't then demand that the victim have the thief over for dinner, or let the thief play with the belongings of the victim since, after all, "they're paying for your stuff anyway!"

Not that a child is a "thing" but we certainly set boundaries between criminal and victim in other cases, even when we force the criminal to make recompense for their crime.

[BlueCaliDem]

78. True.

That poster has the wisdom to know that you attract more flies with honey than you do with bitter vinegar.

[BlueCaliDem]

76. I agree.

Too bad for this case, we're a nation of laws because the highest court of the state ruled that she and her child must have contact with the rapist and father of her baby since he owned up to fathering it and is required to pay child support. Is it right. NO. But it's the law and the sentence the girl now has to suffer until her attorney can amend the sentencing, rewording it from "child support" to "restitution".

[antigone382]

84. If you agree, why are you bringing up her attitude about abortion?

If the bottom line is that the law needs to be changed, and/or that her lawyers and the judge screwed up royally, why tie her suffering to "personal responsibility," "suffering the consequences of her choices," or having the audacity to call the products of her rape a baby when and how she chooses (given that it was within her own body at the time)? Nobody is saying that this issue should not be dealt with legally. We're saying the laws should be clear so it never comes up with it first place.

Your stances on this issue seem to be changing from what you expressed in your initial posts. If that is the case you might want to state it.

[obamanut2012]

149. By your logic, there are no bad laws in the US

Either now or in the past, because we are a nation of laws, and laws are laws. Even read about Dredd Scott? Highest court in the land decided that. Guess that was okay. Bell vs. Buck? Yeah, same thing. etc

[Zygoat]

169. how is your judgment not personal?

and how is it Christian?

Very sorry you had this experience yourself.

[vaberella]

36. You have a deranged thought process. n/t

[etherealtruth]

50. To say the least!

[BlueCaliDem]

79. More personal attacks. Wow.

Do you feel better now?

[vaberella]

105. It has nothing to do with feeling better. It's an observation.

I found your comment as blaming the victim, which it was.

[BlueCaliDem]

115. Riiiight. Just an observation.

But let me break it down for you . . . to believe I have a "deranged thought process" and that I'm "blaming the victim" is to believe the MA supreme court justice does and did as well. And that's pretty arrogant.

Thinking rationally here for a moment, based on the evidence presented before him, evidence neither you nor I have seen, the judge made his decision to make this a family court issue, not a criminal issue. Why? Wasn't it clear that the guy raped the girl?And when the judge rendered his verdict, do you believe he was blaming the girl or did he follow the law based on the evidence before him in his decision?

[obamanut2012]

150. Yeah, I think the MA judge is full of shit and this was a bad decision

And will be overturned.

Lots of us on here would be hell of a lot better judges than quite a few sitting the bench.

[MADem]

118. You don't understand what a personal attack is, either.

Personal attack: You are deranged.

NOT a personal attack: Your thought process is deranged.

The word has more than one meaning, but you are having trouble with the word "choice" so I am not surprised that "deranged" is causing you difficulty as well.

[Still Sensible]

37. I think you are making an unfair assumption

Who knows what her personal decision was ultimately based on? The underlying facts are that she had a choice and she made her choice, which doesn't match what you thought her choice should have been. If my opinion was asked, I probably would have told her it is not the choice I would make in that situation. But, it was HER choice and now she has a child. The bottom line is the miscreant that raped her wants viitation rights. That is appalling. It is unbelievable to me that this felon even wants to take this to court. As a convicted sex offender, his appeal should be thrown out post haste IMO.

[BlueCaliDem]

46. It's not an assumption. It's based on the girl's own words:

From the article:

When her mother found out, they went to the police to press charges. But she decided to keep the baby.

"Being Christian, the way I looked at it, the way I thought of it, this is a baby, an innocent person that didn't do anything wrong. Like, why should I take away that life?" she said.

The bottom line is the miscreant that raped her wants viitation rights. That is appalling. It is unbelievable to me that this felon even wants to take this to court. As a convicted sex offender, his appeal should be thrown out post haste IMO.

I agree, but this got messed up in the courts, specifically, the state's highest court:

The man was charged with four counts of statutory rape of a child in 2009. Last year, he pleaded guilty to all the charges in Norfolk Superior Court. FOX Undercover isn't identifying the victim or the rapist to help protect her identity.

The Norfolk prosecutor asked for a three to five year prison sentence. But Superior Court Judge Thomas McGuire sentenced him to 16 years of probation with the condition he acknowledges he's the father of the baby and abide by the probate and family court.

The probate court ordered him to pay child support, opening the door for him to request visitation rights with the child.

[GObamaGO]

54. OMG

You have no idea what may have went into the obviously painful choice she made to keep the child. I am not certain I would have been able to make the same choice she did, but shame on you for judging her for her choice.

[BlueCaliDem]

80. Uh . . .

You have no idea what may or may not have transpired, either. For all we know, the rape was more of the "statutory" kind, rather than the kind we're more familiar with on teevee. He did claim the relationship was "consensual" (it's in the article - honest!), but he did admit it was inappropriate and wrong, too.

It was only when the mother found out about it and pressed charges that the lid was blown off.

And shame on you for doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing: judging. It goes both ways, doesn't it?

[uppityperson]

98. She also claimed "He threatened me. He told me that he could make my life upside down, and I wouldn

"He threatened me. He told me that he could make my life upside down, and I wouldn't have anybody and he would pin it all on me. So I was scared"

[Arkansas Granny]

87. Pro-choice is pro-choice. If she chose not to terminate her pregnancy, then that was her choice,

and I will not criticize her for that. If her parents pressured her into that decision, shame on them. Regardless, she now has a child and is trying to do what she feels is best for the child.

I would think that being a convicted sex offender would be enough to deny the rapist any contact with the child at all. IMO, he should never be granted parental rights.

[Odin2005]

89. What a fucking DISGUSTING post!

[BlueCaliDem]

103. What a DISGUSTING response to it!

[Odin2005]

123. I think you need to learn what Pro-CHOICE means.

[msanthrope]

92. This has gotta be performance art, right? The "Liberal" Todd Akin sketch? nt

[Lisa D]

100. It's called CHOICE.

Do you really believe she should be punished by having to share parenting with her RAPIST since she didn't choose abortion?

[uppityperson]

102. Because she chose to not have an abortion, this means she should suffer the consequences of having

to co-parent with the man who raped her?

Since you talk about the law as "another glaring problem", it seems your first problem is that she exercised her choice by not having an abortion and for some reason you have a big problem with this "choice".

[Hatchling]

121. A Christian is supposed to forgive.

But forgiving a wrong does not mean you have to trust that person again. She is afraid and distrustful of her rapist.

And I personally would be wary of having my child around a rapist for it's own saftey.

Also, your idea of choice isn't!

[forthemiddle]

134. Are you frickin kidding me?

Although I am pro choice, I could NEVER have an abortion (and yes I have been in that situation). To me, I truly believe that abortion is murder. I will not impose my beliefs on others, but you had better never, ever, ever impose yours on me either.

And for your information, even though I believe in God, I am not practicing, and haven't been to church in years (again my choice) so don't try and pin that one on me either.

Your attitude is why so many on the other side say that pro choice, is actually pro abortion.

[obamanut2012]

151. That poster is not at all "pro abortion"

Nor pro choice. The poster is anti choice.

[stevenleser]

136. This is one of those "You really ought to think about that a bit" kind of posts

Really and seriously.

You ought to think about that for a few days and get back to us. I can tell you that what you have written here is really awful.

[Posteritatis]

137. Very first response in the thread's attacking a rape victim. Classy. (nt)

[Bad_Ronald]

147. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about your post, apart from its reprehensibility, is the fact

that it has been universally condemned by everyone here. Not a single person who has responded to your post has been supportive of your position. Usually, whether the subject is Hugo Chavez, manned space exploration, or sugary drinks, one finds a fairly diverse array of opinions on DU. However, the position you've taken against this raped child is so utterly despicable it has actually succeeded in creating something of a rarity around here - a consensus.

How's does that old saying go? "When six people tell you you're drunk, it's time to sit down"? Well, almost two dozen people here have just informed you you're blitzed off your gourd, so perhaps it is time, for your own sake, that you finally sit down and give it a rest. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, you've done nothing but embarrass yourself here, not to mention denigrate an underage rape victim in the process.

[Starry Messenger]

155. +1000

[backscatter712]

173. Were you born this much of an asshole, or did you have to take classes? n/t

[Tumbulu]

176. excellent question! (nt)

[Tumbulu]

179. My goodness your post is so outrageous

You should consider strongly self deleting it.

Shame on you!

[meow2u3]

2. The legislature ought to pass a law which denies parental rights to rapists

All the victim ought to do is report the rape and the perp should be denied custody or visitation rights. The bastard still would have to pay child support as part of the punishment.

If that won't teach men not to rape, what will?

Pennsylvania is one of the states that allow for parental rights to be terminated if the child is conceived by rape or incest, but AFAIK, it doesn't require the stripping of such rights. I think parental rights of rapists should be automatically terminated, but the rapist should pay child support as a means of restitution.

[Jim Lane]

42. Child support is not "part of the punishment."

A noncustodial father has to pay child support even if the pregnancy was the result of completely consensual sex between two mentally competent adults, so that he's done nothing to be punished for. Child support is intended for the protection of the child, not to teach men not to rape.

Visitation rights are different. Why do we give noncustodial fathers visitation rights?
(1) There's an aspect of benefit to the child, because it's usually a good idea that children have contact with both parents even if the parents aren't living together. There are exceptions, of course, and a rapist father should be one of them.
(2) The difference from child support is that there's also an aspect of benefit to the father. Many men would want contact with their child. Depriving him of that is a legitimate component of punishment. (This assumes that he's been convicted, as in the case in the OP. I assume that your "All the victim ought to do is report the rape..." doesn't mean that these consequences should flow from her mere say-so. She might have to testify at a formal trial, and be subject to cross-examination by the alleged rapist's attorney. That can be traumatic for the victim, but the Sixth Amendment requires it.)

[HockeyMom]

3. This YOUNG teenager is not raising that baby

Grandma is. While she has a choice whether to have it, she doesn't solely have a choice to KEEP IT, without her parent/s help. If she, and her parent/s are against abortion, putting the child up for adoption would have been the better choice for everyone, including the child. None of this would be happening right now if they did.

Very bad situation, made even worse by poor choices.

[HopeHoops]

4. I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.

One of my daughters has a friend who was raped by her boyfriend. She kept the baby and the school district worked with her so she could still get a diploma (a year late). She got a restraining order against the guy, but he wasn't charged. In both cases, the male relinquished the right of parenthood by the act. I've got three daughters and this situation has crossed my mind many times. I'm just glad the fucker is in jail, but the kid should not be forced to encounter an asshole who committed such a crime. That's wrong on every level.

[HockeyMom]

5. This girl was in MIDDLE SCHOOL

that means she had at least 4 more years of just HS, not a 17 year old right before graduation. This is what I meant by YOUNG teenager.

Still in your case, that older teenager too would not be able to raise her baby without parental help; food, clothing, shelter. The school won't be giving her any of that. None of these girls (yes, girls) situation is like at of a self supporting ADULT woman making that same choice.

I still say the better option is ADOPTION.

[HopeHoops]

6. I'll pull the "womens' rights card" on this one. She suffered the rape and it's her child.

I'm glad the parents are supportive, but the male has no claim to rights on this matter. It's disgusting that they would even consider granting him visitation. He was just the aggressive anonymous sperm donor.

[HockeyMom]

10. Well, I agree with you there

I did mention Megan's Law in another post. If child rapists are prevented from being anywhere in the vicinity of children, why is THIS child rapist being allowed to be anywhere around ANY child, even if it's his own? They want to chance INCEST being added to his rap sheet?

Ok, every other point is just side issues.

[HopeHoops]

21. No clue. Not one bit of it makes sense.

[opiate69]

12. Wait... what???

If her parents are willing and capable to help with the baby`s upbringing, how the hell is adoption the better option??

[antigone382]

9. If she and her parents decide to keep the child and work out child care while she is in school...

...that is their personal CHOICE. Their reasons don't matter. If she has a support network that can help her care for the child until she is able to do so herself, she has every right to keep that child if that is what will help her heal, and she should not have to live in fear that the man who caused her so much trauma can enter back into her life or that of the child she chose to have.

None of this should be happening IN ANY CASE. Blaming this rapist's sick sociopathic urge to torment his victim on that victim's personal choice, based on nothing but one line in a news article that indicates she personally could not justify ending her pregnancy, is really beyond words.

[lapislzi]

20. Fine for you.

Good judging there.

You might be correct, but it's none of your business.

[Iris]

22. That's what I was thinking. Adoption is a choice, too.

Painful as it may be, it does seem like a reasonable solution.

[progressivebydesign]

25. I agree with you completely.

At least if the baby was given up for adoption, it would be able to grow up without KNOWING it was the product of a rape, and all of the anxiety and depression that comes with it. I'm not a big adoption cheerleader, other than for truly unwanted kids. Most adoptions in America are curated by wealthy couples and their agencies and lawyers/doctors, from young women who could keep the baby if they just had that same kind of interest and support from people that wanted her to keep the child.

However.. never, ever, ever, would I consider keeping a child that was a product of rape. If I carried it to term, I'd give the baby away. Why burden the child with that? And frankly, some of the most heinous rapes are committed by people with serious issues and I wouldn't want to wish that kind of DNA on anyone.

I'm sure that people will flame away on this, but I've been on ALL sides of this issue.. personally.

[lapislzi]

41. Me, too.

I know a woman who was born of a rape. I know her to be a good and decent person. I don't share her pious religious views, but I respect her right to them, and I know she tries only to do good in the world.

It took her many years into adulthood (we're both in our 50s) for her and her mother to come to terms with how she came into the world. But they worked at it, and they did. I admire them both immensely.

I am sure she would rather be here than not, and I believe she is making a difference in the world. She also has two lovely daughters and a loving circle of friends and churchy people.

Who am I to judge how these things will pan out? She could have wound up with the lion's share of the rapist's DNA and turned into a horrible person, but she did not. (Yes, I know it's 50/50). I am sure she deals with this every time she looks in the mirror.

But, life sure is funny.

[Monk06]

48. The young woman's attitude toward abortion is irrelevant. What's relevant is the attempt by the

rapist to force himself on her, not just a second time but for years into the future. Until the child is 18 years old.

He can force her to not only make the child available to him but could prevent her from moving to another state. He could also force her to reveal her address and personal financial information.

He is not only unrepentant and remorseless; he is using visitation rules to humiliate his victim and exert control over her for years to come.

Rapists should have no parental rights. They should however be forced to provide financial assistance for the child and mother until age of maturity. I would go so far as to insist that this be made a condition of his parole with additional sentence time for failure to comply.

That is the just way to handle this situation.

[orpupilofnature57]

83. +1000

[robinlynne]

49. oh hell NO!

[Liberal_in_LA]

51. +1000

[cr8tvlde]

56. The minute someone acknowledges a parent and asks for money/child support, it opens the door.

Right or wrong. It is the deadbeat dad law in most states, regardless of the situation. The adults ...assuming they are the maternal grandparents ... in this situation should have known better.

[antigone382]

85. The law should deal more clearly with the issue of rape, then.

There do seem to be mechanisms in some states for demanding financial compensation from a rapist whose act results in a pregnancy that is carried to term, but it does not seem to be widely understood how to implement those mechanisms, rather than giving the man (I can't bring myself to use the term father here) access to his victims--the mother and child both. Either the process needs to be made clearer or the laws need to be changed to make that process easier for rape victims.

[Arkansas Granny]

88. I don't know about all state law, but I'm pretty sure that in Arkansas child support

and visitation are two separate issues. Payment of child support does not guarantee visitation privileges.

[obamanut2012]

153. It is here, too

A man or woman can have zero visitation rights, mainly for criminal background reasons, and still have to provide financial support for their child(ren).

[Tsiyu]

91. Then our legislatures are protecting rapists

and NOT protecting children.

This case is a prime example of why laws must be changed.

[seabeyond]

94. rape... does not open the door for shit with rights. nt

[cr8tvlde]

127. Someone upthread said it..with financial responsibility come rights. Plain and simple. It's the law

Again, in California, even a legal husband must prove paternity before it is determined he must pay child support, if the case is brought to the DA. If you don't go for child support, there is generally no need for legal proof. Many women take that route for many reasons.

As for rape, my heart goes out to her and her family. I learned the above the very hard way...it is true with child abuse as well.

My message to All Rape Victims...if you're going to do ANYTHING...get a private attorney who has been in the DA's office. Then decide if the child support is worth it. Usually, it isn't unless he is an upstanding, wealthy citizen...because it takes a very long time to enforce child support rulings, and even longer to convict a rapist, but it's easy to force the mother to comply with visitation.

[seabeyond]

130. i disagree. and all states should have laws, convicted of rape, pay financial restitution

for care of child and NO right to the child and must stay way from the vicitm. there are laws in some states set up.

you rape. you pay.

[obamanut2012]

154. It is not the law in every state

You don't get automatic visitation in many states because you pay support. Lots of factors apply to visitation and custody rights.

[knitter4democracy]

174. If she was applying for any state aid, they had no choice.

State laws are clear on this, that child support has to get paid first before any state aid kicks in.

Secondly, any adult who would rape a child should be barred visitation of any child, period. I'm sure she's not his only victim, as most child predators have many victims. He shouldn't get visitation if just for what he could do to the child.

[dkf]

67. Do all rapists have this right or is it specific to statutory rape?

[orpupilofnature57]

81. The right to castration, and I'm a Liberal.

He should still be prohibited from being anywhere in the proximity of his victim, physically , mentally or emotionally, hence her child should be the first thing off limits, come on,,, no lawyers figured that one out?

[Xithras]

114. This isn't going to be popular, but I disagree with the use of the term "rapist" for this guy.

Statutory rape is clearly a crime that should be prosecuted, but "rape" implies a lack of consent. While the law states that a 14 year old can't give consent, the reality is that 14 year old girls (and boys) have sex by the millions in this country, every single day. What's the legal difference between a 14 year old pursuing and having consensual sex with a 15 year old, and a 14 year old pursuing and having consensual sex with a 20 year old? In most states, legally, there is none...it's the same crime.

Which begs the question...is it rape? My wife was raped, violently, in our own house (I interrupted it). My daughter was nearly raped four years ago while she was out jogging one morning (tackled, but he was chased off by another jogger before anything could happen). My daughters best friend was raped by a boyfriend who got her drunk until she passed out, and then raped her unconscious body. My sister was raped by a stepfather who was turned on by 8 year olds. Those men were rapists. Rape implies a lack of consent, and a concern for your own well being over that of the person you're screwing. Rape implies an imposition of power over the victim.

Should the term really apply to someone who was in a consensual relationship with someone who simply hasn't reached the "legal" threshold yet? That person is absolutely a felon who should be prosecuted, but I don't think the term "rapist" applies.


Under California law, the legal age of consent is 18. ANY male, of any age, having sex with a girl under the age of 18 is committing the crime of statutory rape. When I was 17, I was in a consensual sexual relationship with my 15 year old girlfriend when she got pregnant. According to the logic expressed in this article and by many of the people in this thread, I am a rapist, and I should have been denied access to my daughter as she was growing up because of it. That position is stupid, and defies common sense and basic logic. There is a HUGE difference between violating the age of consent and RAPING someone. There is a HUGE difference between ignoring an age of consent law, and being a RAPIST.

This girl had a consensual sexual relationship with a 20 year old. There was no allegation of force or coersion. She had sex with him, of her own free will, repeatedly and continuously until her mother found out. That's unfortunate, and I don't have a problem with him paying the legal price for breaking the law, but does that make him a rapist? Should he REALLY be denied access to a child that was created during a mutually consensual sexual encounter?

I realize that a lot of people aren't going to like this, but fairness isn't always popular.

[muriel_volestrangler]

120. He threatened her

The teen mother, who still suffers from severe anxiety and depression, says she's terrified at the thought of having to face the man who raped and impregnated her to arrange for visitation rights.

"He threatened me. He told me that he could make my life upside down, and I wouldn't have anybody and he would pin it all on me. So I was scared," she told FOX Undercover reporter Mike Beaudet.

That is not a consensual relationship; it's a threatened 14 year old. It was rape.

[B2G]

126. So this isn't 'legitmate' rape??

Where have we heard THAT before?

[CreekDog]

128. You blew it. The rapist had a consensual relationship with the victim's SISTER

jeez.

FAIL.

[obamanut2012]

156. It was -- and is -- rape

Period.

Lots of slicing and dicing in your post to justify this.

[gollygee]

133. This is one of the worst threads I've seen at DU

I'm not talking about the OP. I'm talking about some of the responses. People need to check themselves a bit better.

[Posteritatis]

138. Seriously. These threads usually draw out MRAs and victim blamers, but wow. (nt)

[cr8tvlde]

139. Outrage and PC on DU does not substitute for common sense, legal realities,before or after the fact.

My message was and still is ... it's nice to Monday morning quarterback, but the fact is what the "referee" /law says will stand. Sorry for the analogy, but parents with underage girls or boys need to GET THIS ... relying on often archaic rape laws will not help. Many parents know but are in total denial about, especially girls, and especially "churgh goers" sexual activity. I know a whole lot about this.

Bottom Liberal line ... get out of denial and buy birth control pills if you can't stop teenage hormones and don't believe in abortion. A hell of a lot cheaper than the situation we have here. IMHO, this poor girl's parents are ignorant before and after the fact. Trust me, especially in a "church" situation and her "older sister" ... if it was "consensual", they knew. Sorry.

[obamanut2012]

157. An adult man threatened a 14-year-old girl and raped her

Please explain how this rape is only a rape because it is based on "archaic law"?

[knitter4democracy]

175. Read the article again.

He threatened her. He coerced her. He raped her.

This wasn't a young girl trying to entrap an older man--this was an older man coercing a young woman and raping her.

[NYC Liberal]

145. Some of the posts in this thread make me wonder what site I'm on.

Disgusting. No, a rapist should NOT have visitation rights. Ever. And no, a woman is NOT wrong for choosing to keep a baby after being raped.

[Tumbulu]

181. agreed!!!! nt

[obamanut2012]

158. This thread is just disgusting

Not you, OP, but some of the responses.

The only silver lining is that this may be the MOST unified thread I've ever seen in GD.

[lost-in-nj]

164. this thread disgusts

I hope it's not your mother, sister , wife or daughter that needs your support

[Deep13]

177. Is it in the child's best interest to establish a relationship with...

...his or her rapist, jail bird, shit bird, human garbage father? I guess the court will decide.

[TexasBushwhacker]

178. This is something ALL states need to address

It says in the article that 16 states have addressed the issue of whether or not a rapist should have visitation rights. It sound like 34 states, including Massachusetts, need a new law.