U.S. courts have uniformly affirmed that the state can lawfully force males to make monthly payments to their rapists. The circumstances that produce this outcome are:
1. woman rapes male with a sex act of reproductive type
2. rapist gets pregnant from the rape
3. rapist gives birth to the baby, rather than aborting it
4. rapist doesnt get rid of the child under safe-haven infant abandonment laws
5. rapist doesnt give the child up for adoption
The rapist can then legally receive a child support order that requires the raped male to make monthly payments to his rapist. The size of these payments depend on the rapists income, not the childs needs, and theres is no legal requirement that these payments actually be used to financially support the child. Moreover, if the rapist is granted state payments under the welfare program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the state will require the rapist to name the raped father of the child. The state will then on its own motion establish a child support order against that male, and the state will collect on behalf of the rapist any payments made under that order. Circumstances of males being legally required to make monthly payments to their rapists have been numerous enough to generate more than seventeen court cases. All the court cases addressing these circumstances have affirmed that a raped male is legally obligated to make payments to his rapists.
Requiring raped males to pay child support is truly a marvel of sophistry, delusion, and social exploitation. Courts typically gesture to the best interests of the child. The irony of referring to the best interests of the child seems to be lost is cases imposing child support on male children of ages twelve and fifteen who were victims of statutory rape. Courts hold up the principle every child has a right to support from both parents. But what about single parents? Should law, public policy, and courts discourage single parenthood? If the public concern is about the financial support of children, two parents are surely better than one parent. But three or more financial parents is better than two. Why not impose child-support orders on grandparents as well as the brothers and sisters of the parent? The best interests of the child would be served even better by imposing child support orders on the whole village.
Males being legally forced to to make monthly payments to their rapists indicates that elite men and women devalue fundamental interests of ordinary men. Legal platitudes about the best interests of the child and the virtues of two-parent families are emotive superstructure above base interests.
The outcome is the same if a woman acquires a males sperm through fraud or theft.