Female privilege

[Sabine Grant]

....
That's for starters. I also think, more controversially, any man should get a time frame to renounce all parental rights and obligations upon hearing of the pregnancy (or the child).

This is truly reprehensible, but you could argue it's in the best interest of the child.

To add that voluntary renunciations of parental rights, meaning actual petitions for the termination of such rights, are usually not granted at the drop of a hat. They are granted when the court determines that it is in the best interest and welfare of the child to have no legal connection with the petitioning biological father. For example the court will lean to grant such termination if the petitioner is a convicted criminal serving a long term sentence. Or if the petitioner is deemed mentally and emotionally unstable, long term alcohol/drug use etc... There must be a compelling reason for such voluntary termination to be granted.

As to this :

"any man should get a time frame to renounce all parental rights and obligations upon hearing of the pregnancy (or the child)." It appears to be the same old same old outcry based on a total misunderstanding of which argumentation led to the Final Decision of Roe/Wade communicated in 1973. To be now misinterpreted as giving women the privilege to decide whether they want to be a parent (by terminating or pursuing the pregnancy to term) when the actual argumentation revolved around the woman being the sole party whose anatomy is involved in the process of gestation. An anatomy she is the sole legitimate and exclusive owner to include her choice of use of such anatomy.(that is where Privacy Rights apply).

Consequently, folks who have never bothered reading the Roe/Wade transcripts will confuse the right given to women to apply the above, for meaning that they are given a privilege men are not given. Reality check : men are not included in that equation for the very reality (undeniable) that their bodily integrity is never compromised via gestation.

 

[Sabine Grant]

To add : from the number of female rape victims I had in my organized support groups, those of them who did not terminate a pregnancy resulting from the rape, were all horrified at the knowledge that the biological father can still legally petition a court for visitation rights. The last thing such rape victims want to have to cope with is any prolonged connection with the man who assaulted/ raped them.

Also, I will add that I never considered it a privilege to have been raped when I was 17.

Their only recourse was to petition a court to terminate the parental rights of the biological father. If he is still incarcerated, courts might consider granting the mother of the child her petition. However if already released, the biological father is susceptible to obtain visitation rights.

 

[laughing dog]

This is truly reprehensible, but you could argue it's in the best interest of the child.

To add that voluntary renunciations of parental rights, meaning actual petitions for the termination of such rights, are usually not granted at the drop of a hat. They are granted when the court determines that it is in the best interest and welfare of the child to have no legal connection with the petitioning biological father. For example the court will lean to grant such termination if the petitioner is a convicted criminal serving a long term sentence. Or if the petitioner is deemed mentally and emotionally unstable, long term alcohol/drug use etc... There must be a compelling reason for such voluntary termination to be granted.

As to this :

"any man should get a time frame to renounce all parental rights and obligations upon hearing of the pregnancy (or the child)." It appears to be the same old same old outcry based on a total misunderstanding of which argumentation led to the Final Decision of Roe/Wade communicated in 1973. To be now misinterpreted as giving women the privilege to decide whether they want to be a parent (by terminating or pursuing the pregnancy to term) when the actual argumentation revolved around the woman being the sole party whose anatomy is involved in the process of gestation. An anatomy she is the sole legitimate and exclusive owner to include her choice of use of such anatomy.(that is where Privacy Rights apply).

Consequently, folks who have never bothered reading the Roe/Wade transcripts will confuse the right given to women to apply the above, for meaning that they are given a privilege men are not given. Reality check : men are not included in that equation for the very reality (undeniable) that their bodily integrity is never compromised via gestation.

To be fair, the people arguing for men being able to terminate parental rights at the news of pregnancy do not appear to give a damn about the welfare of the child or the mother at all. It is all argued from the point of view of the welfare and "rights" of the sperm ejaculator.

 

[RavenSky]

And almost all of the states have custody rights for convicted males rapists, too. So much for the bogus claim of female privilege

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I disagree. The only people who should be responsible for a child are the people who made a decision which resulted in it being born. The whole point of child support payments is saying to a father that he made this decision and he must therefore bear the consequences of that decision. According to the statuatory rape laws, however, this man never made that decision. It's not that the kid getting born was an unintentional result of his decision, it's that he was unable to legally make the decision in the first place.

What is your opinion in cases where both of the parents are minors? When, for instance, both of them are 14 at the time of conception, what should be the outcome with respect to child support?

There's no adult in that situation, so they're both equally liable for the results.

It's kind of why statutory rape is a thing in the first place.

 

[RavenSky]

How exactly is the 14 year old "partially responsible" for the existence of the child? The entire concept of statuatory rape is that the younger person lacks the ability to consent and thus does not bear any responsibility for the act. The law cannot simultaneously say that he lacks the ability to consent to the action and is also responsible for the consequences of the action.

From what little I know about this case, I agree with you as to this specific. I understand the argument that the child born didn't get to pick its parents and is still entitled to support, but if the male was a minor and a victim of a rape, he should not in any way be victimized further.

That said, the OP's claim of "female privilege" being evidenced by this case (or anything else) is absurd.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I take Derec's point, and have to ask if any of you seriously and honestly think a female rape victim should be forced by the state to be financially responsible for the consequences of her rape, like you are saying this male rape victim should. I definitely see a glaring female privilege.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I take Derec's point, and have to ask if any of you seriously and honestly think a female rape victim should be forced by the state to be financially responsible for the consequences of her rape, like you are saying this male rape victim should. I definitely see a glaring female privilege.

It's not really a "privilege", but more of a thing where there's no equivalent scenario that a woman would realistically find herself in.

 

[RavenSky]

I take Derec's point, and have to ask if any of you seriously and honestly think a female rape victim should be forced by the state to be financially responsible for the consequences of her rape, like you are saying this male rape victim should. I definitely see a glaring female privilege.

It's not really a "privilege", but more of a thing where there's no equivalent scenario that a woman would realistically find herself in.

Sure there is, and it happens all the time... When the male convicted rapist gets to petition for shared custody, thereby inserting his rapist self into not only his victim's life, but the life of the innocent child. And that happens even when the rapist is the violent, beat his victim up kind... not just statutory kind.

We could make the same type of argument that it is in the best interests of the child to have the (emotional) support of both parents, but I think it is wrong too.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's not really a "privilege", but more of a thing where there's no equivalent scenario that a woman would realistically find herself in.

Sure there is, and it happens all the time... When the male convicted rapist gets to petition for shared custody, thereby inserting his rapist self into not only his victim's life, but the life of the innocent child. And that happens even when the rapist is the violent, beat his victim up kind... not just statutory kind.

We could make the same type of argument that it is in the best interests of the child to have the (emotional) support of both parents, but I think it is wrong too.

That's not really an equivalent to the given situation.

 

[RavenSky]

Sure there is, and it happens all the time... When the male convicted rapist gets to petition for shared custody, thereby inserting his rapist self into not only his victim's life, but the life of the innocent child. And that happens even when the rapist is the violent, beat his victim up kind... not just statutory kind.

We could make the same type of argument that it is in the best interests of the child to have the (emotional) support of both parents, but I think it is wrong too.

That's not really an equivalent to the given situation.

it's a rape victim being revictimized by the rapist in the "best interests of the child".

Either way, though, this case is no example of any "female privilege" - on that and other points in this thread, we agree

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's not really an equivalent to the given situation.

it's a rape victim being revictimized by the rapist in the "best interests of the child".

Either way, though, this case is no example of any "female privilege" - on that and other points in this thread, we agree

OK, I see your point. I was thinking more along the lines of the financial liability.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For standard child support cases, the only ones that I see as inflicting agony are when the man drops income drastically and the child support is not tapered accordingly.

Say the man is a popular musical performer or athlete or a high paid pharmaceutical salesman. Then his income drops from mid 6-figures+ to mid 5-figures. What happens in that case?

He can go back to court and make his case to the judge. In any case, I recommend he keep a good relationship with the child's mother. That in itself is equal to the cost of a lawyer.

All too often the judge isn't willing to listen, especially if she manages to delay things long enough that he's run out of money and is now a deadbeat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Derec seemed to be taking issue with the concept of child support on the whole, which is a sentiment I was responding to. I don't particularly disagree with what you're saying in this particular case, assuming said circumstances are accurate.

I do not have a problem with child support in principle, but it is in need of serious overhaul. The doctrine that if a man's sperm is used to conceive a child he is automatically liable for child support (unless a cheating woman's husband can be forced to pay child support instead) no matter how that sperm was obtained needs to be axed.
No man should be liable for child support if
- he is a victim of rape or statutory rape
- he is a sperm donor
- he is not either the biological father or has adopted the child.

After all we do not force women to pay child support in similar situations. Egg donors are not forced to pay child support. Women whose husbands cheat are not forced to pay for child support for any children that result from the adulterous affair. And certainly no girl who was 14 when she had sex with a 20 year old is going to see the 20 year old get custody and land her with a child support bill.

That's for starters. I also think, more controversially, any man should get a time frame to renounce all parental rights and obligations upon hearing of the pregnancy (or the child).

I'll go farther: Child support should not be awarded if the pregnancy was discovered in time to have an abortion. The choice to have a kid was 100% hers, so should be the responsibility.

I would also like to pretty much take child support away from the judges and go with an automatic system. A judge can only order a deviation from the automatic and only with good reason. Let the IRS figure what people owe, they have the needed data.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

....
That's for starters. I also think, more controversially, any man should get a time frame to renounce all parental rights and obligations upon hearing of the pregnancy (or the child).

This is truly reprehensible, but you could argue it's in the best interest of the child.

What's reprehensible about it?

She chooses abort/adopt/keep, the consequences should fall on her.

 

[Toni]

I do not have a problem with child support in principle, but it is in need of serious overhaul. The doctrine that if a man's sperm is used to conceive a child he is automatically liable for child support (unless a cheating woman's husband can be forced to pay child support instead) no matter how that sperm was obtained needs to be axed.
No man should be liable for child support if
- he is a victim of rape or statutory rape
- he is a sperm donor
- he is not either the biological father or has adopted the child.

After all we do not force women to pay child support in similar situations. Egg donors are not forced to pay child support. Women whose husbands cheat are not forced to pay for child support for any children that result from the adulterous affair. And certainly no girl who was 14 when she had sex with a 20 year old is going to see the 20 year old get custody and land her with a child support bill.

That's for starters. I also think, more controversially, any man should get a time frame to renounce all parental rights and obligations upon hearing of the pregnancy (or the child).

I'll go farther:

Of course you would.

Child support should not be awarded if the pregnancy was discovered in time to have an abortion. The choice to have a kid was 100% hers, so should be the responsibility.

Of course it was only her choice to have a kid. He had NOTHING to do with the conception at all. And why not force the woman to have an abortion due to economic necessity? It's not as though a woman is of the same worth as a man, after all. Slut shouldn't have opened her legs if she couldn't plunk down $245K right on the spot to pay for the kid all by herself.

I would also like to pretty much take child support away from the judges and go with an automatic system. A judge can only order a deviation from the automatic and only with good reason. Let the IRS figure what people owe, they have the needed data.

I thought you didn't approve of big government? Why not just leave all the decision making to some computer generated algorithm programmed by a faceless bureaucracy? That definitely would ensure that the best interests of the child were being met.

Hopefully the IRS will be there to pick out your nursing home for you when the time comes, Loren.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'll go farther: Child support should not be awarded if the pregnancy was discovered in time to have an abortion. The choice to have a kid was 100% hers, so should be the responsibility.

I would also like to pretty much take child support away from the judges and go with an automatic system. A judge can only order a deviation from the automatic and only with good reason. Let the IRS figure what people owe, they have the needed data.

Okay, I'll see your reprehensible and raise you a despicable.

 

[laughing dog]

This is truly reprehensible, but you could argue it's in the best interest of the child.

What's reprehensible about it?

She chooses abort/adopt/keep, the consequences should fall on her.

This is a perfect example of concentrating on the rights/welfare of the sperm ejaculator and ignoring the welfare effects on the child and the woman.

 

[fast]

The woman is not guilty of the crime of statutory rape, as she was never charged with the crime of statutory rape because the statutory rape was never reported. The male could have avoided this by reporting the crime. She cannot currently be charged with the crime because of the statute of limitations.

Being found guilty and being guilty are not one and the same. If a person has committed a crime, then that person is guilty of the crime.

One misconception (when a case goes to trial) is that the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty. Not true. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Another misconception (after a guilty verdict) is that the accused is guilty of the crime to which he has been accused. Not true. The accused has been found guilty. A person that has committed no crime that has been found guilty is not guilty. They will be treated as guilty, but that's a different matter.

You are under the mistaken belief that guilt is a function of verdict. It is not.

 

[Underseer]

When you are a 20 year old woman and have sex with a 14 year old and not only not to prison for it but are allowed to profit from your crime by making him pay you thousands in child support.

Arizona statutory rape victim forced to pay child support

If we reverse the genders, can we imagine a 20 year old man having sex with a 14 year old girl, not going to prison, getting full custody and receiving child support from her? Even if she missed a court deadline.

Feminists are lobbying to strip any parental rights of "rapists" even without conviction but of course that doesn't apply to womyn because we all know they are "more equal".

We need to get away from this legal principle that sperm automatically makes a man liable for paternity no matter how it was obtained (rape, theft, fraud etc.) Furthermore, I think men should have an opt out time window where they can terminate all parental rights and obligations within say a month after learning of a pregnancy (even if they learn of it years later).

Ah, here we go again.

The Nazis insisted that they were being persecuted by Jews even as they were stuffing Jews into ovens.

The Apartheid South Africans insisted they were being oppressed by black South Africans even as they brutalized them.

Muslims in Muslim majority countries insist that they're being persecuted by whatever religious minority lives among them.

And so it comes as no surprise that the American variety of conservatism insists that rich people are being persecuted by the poor and middle class, whites are being persecuted by racial minorities, Christians are being persecuted by homosexuals, and right, men are being persecuted by women.

Some day, you will tell your grandchildren about all the persecution you endured, and their little eyes will well up with tears of admiration.