Female privilege

[Metaphor]

The case of the child father and the adult mother takes murky to the opaque. A boy can't be held responsible in the same manner as a man, but there is still a child to consider. Remember him? Now is the time for Solomonic wisdom. We wait for the boy to become man, then we give him the man's responsibilities. I think that works out well for all of us.

If that's your idea of 'Solomonic wisdom', I truly hope Solomonic wisdom is nowhere to be found in any society.

If a 14 year old girl had been raped by a 20 year old man, would you wait until she was 18, and the start charging her child support? If you say 'yes', that's a grossly deranged opinion but at least not hypocritical. If you say 'no', your stance on holding raped boys responsible but not raped girls is hypocritical and grossly deranged.

 

[J842P]

The case of the child father and the adult mother takes murky to the opaque. A boy can't be held responsible in the same manner as a man, but there is still a child to consider. Remember him? Now is the time for Solomonic wisdom. We wait for the boy to become man, then we give him the man's responsibilities. I think that works out well for all of us.

If that's your idea of 'Solomonic wisdom', I truly hope Solomonic wisdom is nowhere to be found in any society.

If a 14 year old girl had been raped by a 20 year old man, would you wait until she was 18, and the start charging her child support? If you say 'yes', that's a grossly deranged opinion but at least not hypocritical. If you say 'no', your stance on holding raped boys responsible but not raped girls is hypocritical and grossly deranged.

I suppose the difference is that boys need to learn to man up anyways.

 

[fast]

I had a problem with the word, "profit" for a short while, but the ambiguity of words are so great, I decided to look it up, and sure enough, it seems doubtful that the accountants version is what's applicable here, so regardless of the monetary expenses in raising a child, any wrongful gains (despite expenses) could be regarded as profit. At least that's what my quick look leads me to believe.

 

[Derec]

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.

You dismiss men as merely a "sperm ejaculator" so it's hardly surprising that you think men should have no rights and be treated merely as an ATM machine for the benefit of women.

If a woman has the right to chose whether to carry on the pregnancy or terminate it the financial responsibility should fall on her as well, not on the party who was given no choice in the matter.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

Not really sure where I fall on this. I would like to see you make an argument or show some logic. Maybe show how Loren's logic is flawed, rather than just emoting and accusing people of "ignoring the welfare effects on the child and the woman".

Saying the woman should pay, since she decided to keep the child, does leave the question open as to what Loren says should happen if she doesn't have the ability to pay. Perhaps that is where the man steps in, or perhaps where society at large should step in (if he was raped, etc and has no more responsibility for the pregnancy than you or I). So long as the child is paid for, by her, the father, or society at large, it is a wash financially speaking, so that's not "ignoring the welfare of the child".

So that leaves your concern for the welfare of the woman. Since the father took place in the sex act and caused the pregnancy equally with the mother, I don't think anybody will argue the man shouldn't pay at least half the price of an abortion. What if he'll pay the full amount for it? Does that cover the welfare concern of the woman? I am thinking you will say know (and I agree). She may have complications from the abortion and may have health effects from the pregnancy until the abortion is done, which may result in medical bills, and pain and suffering, etc. The man should pay for half of that, since again, he is half responsible for the pregnancy.

I'm sure you disagree with Loren's positions, and with my own (which seem to be in between the two of you) and have some opinions and ideas on these details, so why not present those, instead of emoting and calling people despicable and telling them "they ignore the welfare" of people. Your post and Derec's last post look exactly the same to me.

 

[EricK]

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 think the argument is being made is this:
Both parties are equally responsible for the pregnancy (except in the case of rape)
Only the woman is responsible for the decision as to whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy (i.e. the man can not legally force the woman to have an abortion if she doesn't want it, nor can he legally prevent her if she does)
Therefore the choice to have the kid was 100% hers.

As an analogy, imagine a culture where marriage is a voluntary act by both parties, but only the man can decide whether or not there is a divorce. In this case, both parties would be equally responsible for the marriage occurring, but the man would be 100% responsible for whether the marriage continues.

I'm not sure how you deduce slut-accusations from this argument. Nor why you think he is saying women are worth less than men. After all, in the marriage/divorce analogy, there would be no reason at all to think that anybody who thought this arrangement was unfair was claiming that men are worth less than women.

 

[Toni]

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 think the argument is being made is this:
Both parties are equally responsible for the pregnancy (except in the case of rape)
Only the woman is responsible for the decision as to whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy (i.e. the man can not legally force the woman to have an abortion if she doesn't want it, nor can he legally prevent her if she does)
Therefore the choice to have the kid was 100% hers.

As an analogy, imagine a culture where marriage is a voluntary act by both parties, but only the man can decide whether or not there is a divorce. In this case, both parties would be equally responsible for the marriage occurring, but the man would be 100% responsible for whether the marriage continues.

I'm not sure how you deduce slut-accusations from this argument. Nor why you think he is saying women are worth less than men. After all, in the marriage/divorce analogy, there would be no reason at all to think that anybody who thought this arrangement was unfair was claiming that men are worth less than women.

I understood completely the argument Loren was making. I've had similar discussions on this forum and the other.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Abortion isn't about having the baby, it's about the woman's right to do what she wants with her body. The fetus is a secondary concern. There's no equivalence for a decision from a man since it's not about deciding to be a parent but about deciding to be a storage unit.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Not really sure where I fall on this. I would like to see you make an argument or show some logic. Maybe show how Loren's logic is flawed, rather than just emoting and accusing people of "ignoring the welfare effects on the child and the woman".

Saying the woman should pay, since she decided to keep the child, does leave the question open as to what Loren says should happen if she doesn't have the ability to pay. Perhaps that is where the man steps in, or perhaps where society at large should step in (if he was raped, etc and has no more responsibility for the pregnancy than you or I). So long as the child is paid for, by her, the father, or society at large, it is a wash financially speaking, so that's not "ignoring the welfare of the child".

So that leaves your concern for the welfare of the woman. Since the father took place in the sex act and caused the pregnancy equally with the mother, I don't think anybody will argue the man shouldn't pay at least half the price of an abortion. What if he'll pay the full amount for it? Does that cover the welfare concern of the woman? I am thinking you will say know (and I agree). She may have complications from the abortion and may have health effects from the pregnancy until the abortion is done, which may result in medical bills, and pain and suffering, etc. The man should pay for half of that, since again, he is half responsible for the pregnancy.

I'm sure you disagree with Loren's positions, and with my own (which seem to be in between the two of you) and have some opinions and ideas on these details, so why not present those, instead of emoting and calling people despicable and telling them "they ignore the welfare" of people. Your post and Derec's last post look exactly the same to me.

Okay, I will detail the obvious for you.

Saying the man is absolved of any type of responsibility for any child if the mother decides to keep the baby means that baby will have less parental resources available to it. That is true regardless of any government institutions or programs available. Loren lives in the USA and claims to be knowledgeable about such US institutions and programs which means he ought to know that existing ones are not generous and that is very unlikely for that to change. Moreover, he does not address the child as a person with feelings, needs and potential at all. It should be obvious there is no concern whatsoever for the child in his position.

Deciding whether to bear a pregnancy to term or to abort is a difficult and literally a gut-wrenching decision for a woman. Bearing to term is an emotional and physical and health burden for a woman. Having an abortion is an emotional and physical and health burden to a woman. Paying for an abortion does not come close to addressing the welfare of the woman. Saying "it's the woman's choice, so she should bear the burden" (i.e. Loren's position) ignores all of that, so it clearly does not show any concern for the welfare of the mother.

Interestingly, you posit that the father should be financially liable for half of the expenses from the mother's possible health issues arising from the abortion/pregnancy/birth because he caused the pregnancy equally with the mother. Since a child is a logical and foreseeable possible consequence of the sex act (even with birth control), your reasoning indicates that the father should be financially liable for half the child support. Yet you do not agree.

 

[Sabine Grant]

The case of the child father and the adult mother takes murky to the opaque. A boy can't be held responsible in the same manner as a man, but there is still a child to consider. Remember him? Now is the time for Solomonic wisdom. We wait for the boy to become man, then we give him the man's responsibilities. I think that works out well for all of us.

If that's your idea of 'Solomonic wisdom', I truly hope Solomonic wisdom is nowhere to be found in any society.

If a 14 year old girl had been raped by a 20 year old man, would you wait until she was 18, and the start charging her child support? If you say 'yes', that's a grossly deranged opinion but at least not hypocritical. If you say 'no', your stance on holding raped boys responsible but not raped girls is hypocritical and grossly deranged.

The only way the 20 year old rapist would be filing for child support is if he had custody of the child. The parent who is the custodian is the party who would be raising the child and considered the party who can legally file for child support. Which party in your scenario would be filing for child support to be paid by the rape victim at the age of 18?

You can pick from :

-child was adopted which means her parental rights were terminated.Any assumption here that the adoptive parents can file for child support from the biological mother whose parental rights were terminated as part of the legal process of adoption?

-temporary custody was granted to her parents until her majority. Any assumptions here that as custody of the child is restored to the biological mother, now a legal adult, that her parents would file for child support?

-rapist was granted custody of the child. Any assumption here that the incarcerated biological father would be granted custody of the child?

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

Legally speaking, it is. A paternity suit is a legal issue, and all that would matter with regard to any such suit would be guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law. But that does not even appear to matter. If a convicted male rapist can sue for visitation rights, then a convicted female rapist can sue for child support. Of course, in this case there was no rape conviction, there was not even a charge of rape. The guy had a several year window of opportunity to make his case, and he did not do it. No one else should be to blame for his inaction.

 

[Playball40]

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.

You dismiss men as merely a "sperm ejaculator" so it's hardly surprising that you think men should have no rights and be treated merely as an ATM machine for the benefit of women.

If a woman has the right to chose whether to carry on the pregnancy or terminate it the financial responsibility should fall on her as well, not on the party who was given no choice in the matter.

NO CHOICE? Really? He chose to schlep her, he chose to potentially become a dad.

 

[Derec]

NO CHOICE? Really? He chose to schlep her, he chose to potentially become a dad.

Once a pregnancy takes hold the woman has all the choice, the man has none. That should mean that the responsibility, financial or otherwise, should fall on the woman unless the man agrees to parenthood.

Responsibility should be a function of the choice people have in the matter. Currently the law doesn't reflect that as women have vast majority of the choice (in fact they are the only ones with any choice post-ejaculation) while men carry most of the financial burden (in Georgia child support can be up to 40% of a man's gross pay).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Responsibility should be a function of the choice people have in the matter.

So, men don't have any control over their fertility?
I've used condoms by choice.
I've had a vasectomy by choice.
And i have chosen not to stick my dick in women that i didn't want to have a baby with.

I don't see how women's reproductive rights means men don't have choices. They just can't choose to adjust their fertility retroactively.

that's too bad, but that's the real world. It'd be GREAT if we could have a save point and once we know th econsequence of our actions, rewind back to just before the choice. Then we wouldn't take that last drink and end up wrapped around a telephone pole, we wouldn't take a short-cut through the zombie infested cemetary, we wouldn't get a degree in a technology that's about to become obsolete, and we wouldn't have sex with that woman who lied about being on the Pill.
Welcome to the real world, though. Choices have consequences.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

You dismiss men as merely a "sperm ejaculator" so it's hardly surprising that you think men should have no rights and be treated merely as an ATM machine for the benefit of women.

On the contrary, it is the people who think that men have no responsibility towards the baby who are literally treating the man as only a sperm ejaculator.

If a woman has the right to chose whether to carry on the pregnancy or terminate it the financial responsibility should fall on her as well, not on the party who was given no choice in the matter.

The woman did not get pregnant by herself. Your position absolves the man of any responsibility, which reduces him to merely an ejaculator of sperm. It demeans men.

 

[Toni]

NO CHOICE? Really? He chose to schlep her, he chose to potentially become a dad.

Once a pregnancy takes hold the woman has all the choice, the man has none. That should mean that the responsibility, financial or otherwise, should fall on the woman unless the man agrees to parenthood.

Responsibility should be a function of the choice people have in the matter. Currently the law doesn't reflect that as women have vast majority of the choice (in fact they are the only ones with any choice post-ejaculation) while men carry most of the financial burden (in Georgia child support can be up to 40% of a man's gross pay).

That's not really true: a woman can choose to carry a pregnancy or terminate--depending on where she lives. Let us not pretend that all or even most women in the US have access to safe, affordable and accessible abortions. If she carries to term, the father can sue for custody and child support. If she wishes to place the child for adoption, the consent and cooperation of the father is required.

I agree that the goal of child support should be to provide for the child and not impoverish either parent. Fact is many parents work multiple jobs to provide for their kids. And if they ate female, that is held against them in terms of custody and custody holds them back with regards to their earning potential.

So please: no more bull about all choices being the woman's choices.

 

[Metaphor]

You dismiss men as merely a "sperm ejaculator" so it's hardly surprising that you think men should have no rights and be treated merely as an ATM machine for the benefit of women.

If a woman has the right to chose whether to carry on the pregnancy or terminate it the financial responsibility should fall on her as well, not on the party who was given no choice in the matter.

NO CHOICE? Really? He chose to schlep her, he chose to potentially become a dad.

A 14 year old cannot consent to sex with a 20 year old. Is this really so hard to understand?

 

[Metaphor]

The only way the 20 year old rapist would be filing for child support is if he had custody of the child. The parent who is the custodian is the party who would be raising the child and considered the party who can legally file for child support. Which party in your scenario would be filing for child support to be paid by the rape victim at the age of 18?

You can pick from :

-child was adopted which means her parental rights were terminated.Any assumption here that the adoptive parents can file for child support from the biological mother whose parental rights were terminated as part of the legal process of adoption?

-temporary custody was granted to her parents until her majority. Any assumptions here that as custody of the child is restored to the biological mother, now a legal adult, that her parents would file for child support?

-rapist was granted custody of the child. Any assumption here that the incarcerated biological father would be granted custody of the child?

It's the last scenario I'm talking about. Now of course, someone who was incarcerated can't have custody of his own or anyone's child while incarcerated, and in Arizona sexual conduct with a minor is a class 2 felony, which carries a 5.25 to 14 year sentence.

But to mirror the scenario presented in the OP, imagine a 14 year old girl was statutorily raped by a 20 year old man, but at the time no charges were brought. She has the baby and gives it to the father. At some later stage he sues her for child support and the courts grant him the petition, since he was never convicted of anything.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Once a pregnancy takes hold the woman has all the choice, the man has none. That should mean that the responsibility, financial or otherwise, should fall on the woman unless the man agrees to parenthood.

But would you agree that if a man makes a choice to have sex with a woman (taking us away from the OP scenario), he is jointly responsible for the consequence of that choice? Do you agree that he should at least pay half the cost of the abortion and half the cost of health effects suffered by the woman due to her being impregnated?

The question seems to be whether or not the woman then having the exclusive choice to abort or not abort should make her solely responsible for the result of that choice, even though the man is jointly responsible for putting her in the position to have to make that choice.

This then starts to sound like mitigation of damages in a personal injury case. If I drive my car into you, you then have the choice of what medical care you will seek. If care is available to you and paid for, and you refuse to take it, I can say you failed to mitigate, meaning you chose to be in a worse condition than you had to be, and discount that from the damages I owe you. Do you see the decision to abort as analogous? Or do you say that the risks involved in having an abortion, and the psychological effects of having one change the reasoning?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But to mirror the scenario presented in the OP, imagine a 14 year old girl was statutorily raped by a 20 year old man, but at the time no charges were brought. She has the baby and gives it to the father. At some later stage he sues her for child support and the courts grant him the petition, since he was never convicted of anything.

With regard to the OP, and your presentation of the mirror image scenario, I am pretty shocked that people still don't see a gender bias. A guy who actually did that would be incredibly ballsy, and no way should he win that petition. Does anybody here really honestly say he should?