You didn't read the Shepherd V. Clemens case I included in my "mindless links" did you?

[Edited on August 23, 2012 at 11:39 AM. Reason : -]

8/23/2012 11:38:14 AM

I didn't originally but I just did. What am I supposed to be taking away from this?

He's a deadbeat who originally voluntarily gave up his parental rights because the mother agreed to give the child up for adoption. Then he didn't pay support and the court took the parental rights away from both so it could grow up in a real family. great.

If he actually did pay child support and was a good father are you truly arguing that it would be in the child's best interest to have the entire parental responsibility be on the 16-year old mother? Or does the child's best interest have nothing to do with it?

8/23/2012 11:50:54 AM

He was a rapist.

I guess you missed that part.

Good job "reading" it.

8/23/2012 12:01:01 PM

A statutory rapist. I didn't miss that part. And she's an unfit mother. I was supposing what if he was a good father? Is that completely irrelevant because he's a statutory rapist?

What if it was two people who got drunk and then afterward the woman decided to call it rape? What if it was false rape? What if he was 18 and she was 1 day from turning 16? Still, fuck the rapist pig, even if he's a better potential parent?

8/23/2012 12:04:59 PM

There was no distinction made between the varying degrees of rape.

No difference legally between statutory or violent offender.

So yes, fuck the rapist pig.

8/23/2012 12:16:06 PM

There *IS* a difference legally between statutory rape and violent offense. And in North Carolina there are different severities of statutory rape depending on the age difference between the perpetrator and the victim.

As there should be. I can't believe that you honestly consider aggravated violent sexual assault exactly the same as drunk sex or statutory rape.

8/23/2012 12:25:53 PM

I understand the difference in severity, yes.

That's why the prison sentences vary in length,

Loss of custody of children by default, as it should be with any sex crime.

The only link between a rapist and his child is purely biological. Not a whole lot of parental thought went into the rape of the mother.

You're a complete joke.

8/23/2012 1:58:03 PM

Quote :

"Loss of custody of children by default, as it should be with any sex crime."

Disagree. We convict men far too easily for sex crimes to have such a non-nuanced position. A man accidentally exposes himself in public and you think we should take his kids away? 2 people have drunk sex and the woman decides to call it rape and you think we should take his kids away? I know you're not going to address this since it's the 3rd time I've mentioned it, but the point remains.

Quote :

"The only link between a rapist and his child is purely biological. Not a whole lot of parental thought went into the rape of the mother."

What's the link to the mother if not biological? Magical? What parental thought did she have compared to him?

This is pointless. You think every "rape" is exactly the same, from the 17 year old who pissed off his 16 year old girlfriend or a violent serial rapist. We don't need to discuss this further. You can have the last word and call me a 'waste of life' or a 'joke' or talk shit about my parenting or whatever you want.

8/23/2012 2:39:10 PM

For emphasis, page 2.

Quote :

""I'm having a hard time understanding why exactly they should never see their child as an additional punishment.""

You were done from the beginning; I honestly shouldn't have responded to this at all short of calling you disgusting.

Quote :

"I fail to see how letting the child's father see him or her (if he even wishes to and poses no danger to the child) is "power over his victim.""

If I had said something like this I would have been labeled a troll, intentionally provoking TSB for no other reason that to stir controversy.

As I said before, I'm pretty sure you were intentionally being obtuse. Nobody defends convicted rapists like this or actually wants them to be around any children; it's simply a ludicrous position to attempt to hold. Custody over the product of rape? Even worse. If you can't see the common sense behind that statement then I don't know what else to tell you.

Not intended as a threat but rather as a concerned observation; I would be reluctant to say such things in a public forum if I were concerned for my own safety.

Akin is beyond being the biggest piece of shit ever for even causing these discussions to be had, although maybe it will cause the other 19 states in the union to adopt similar laws to the ones I linked earlier.

Even though it's not needed because no human jury thinks like disco_stu. Right, I'm done now too.

[Edited on August 23, 2012 at 6:04 PM. Reason : -]

8/23/2012 6:03:10 PM