Female privilege

[Bronzeage]

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.

There are a lot of deranged opinions in this thread and this one hardly stands out. It was Solomonic wisdom that was concerned with the welfare of the baby. Somebody is going to get a raw deal out of this situation. Solomon says it's not going to be the baby. Others have more sympathy for the former 14 year old. There's arguments on both sides.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

This is not a mirror image of the OP scenario, since it is the state who is going after the man for child support because the mother petitioned for state assistance. If one reads the comments in the OP by the state officials, the genders are irrelevant because this is basically a strategy to minimize state support for children.

 

[Sabine Grant]

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.

And there we go again.... Derec, Roe/Wade giving women the right to pursue or terminate a pregnancy is NOT about parental responsibilities. It is about her bodily integrity and the undeniable reality that she is the sole and exclusive owner of her own anatomy, anatomy necessary to sustain human gestation until the point of fetal viability out utero.

That should mean that the responsibility, financial or otherwise, should fall on the woman unless the man agrees to parenthood.

You are advocating here pressuring pregnant women into terminating the pregnancy based on single parenting. There should be NO pressure placed on any pregnant woman to pursue or terminate their pregnancy.
Such legislation you are advocating would undeniably result in the State exercising a coercive role over her SCOTUS given right to pursue or terminate her pregnancy. I have already explained what the justification and motivation were leading to the Final Decision communicated in 1973. Again, it had nothing to do with parental responsibilities. That was not the burden undertaken by the Supreme Court Justices.

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)

Surely, you are not suggesting that it is an injustice that women are undeniably recognized as the sole gender with the anatomical capacity to support the gestation of a human fetus, or are you? That it is an injustice that they are undeniably recognized as the SOLE and exclusive owner of their own anatomy(not their boy friend, husband or occasional sexual partner) therefore empowered via Roe/Wade to choose whether to pursue or terminate such gestation? Need I to detail for you in clinically and medically supported terms why the party's anatomy who supports the human gestational process is given the choice to pursue or terminate post ejaculation versus no choice for the other party(male)?

while men carry most of the financial burden (in Georgia child support can be up to 40% of a man's gross pay).

Men do not carry "most of the financial burden". Mom is still fully responsible for assuming the BLEs (basic living expenses) supporting shelter and utilities in the home where the child resides, since (duh) as custodian of the child, the child will reside under the same roof. What those "men" will never have to do :

-nurturing and raising of the child 24/7.
-attending the child when ailing or sick.
-schooling of the child encompassing all the parental duties regarding schooled children some of us who have actually raised children have hands on experience.
-just about every daily care anyone who has raised a child has hand on experience.

And you are going to whine about those biological fathers being compelled by law to provide financial support until the majority of the child or graduation from high school?

Speaking of the above, is it just me or have other participants to this same old same old topic noticed that the folks who tend to support what derec has been suggesting "any man should be able to renounce parental rights...etc" are folks who do not appear to have raised a child? That their thinking about parental responsibilities is limited to financial?

 

[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.

This is not a mirror image of the OP scenario, since it is the state who is going after the man for child support because the mother petitioned for state assistance. If one reads the comments in the OP by the state officials, the genders are irrelevant because this is basically a strategy to minimize state support for children.

So if the man in Metaphor's scenario were to petition for state assistance, you would fully expect the state to go after the raped girl for child support? Really?

 

[Sabine Grant]

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.

This is not a mirror image of the OP scenario, since it is the state who is going after the man for child support because the mother petitioned for state assistance. If one reads the comments in the OP by the state officials, the genders are irrelevant because this is basically a strategy to minimize state support for children.

Bingo! It is the exact same process in Florida. Under the Florida Statutes, the State will proceed with finding the biological father and petition the court to order child support payments when the biological mother files for assistance. And yes, the genders are irrelevant. The majority of such petitions concern mothers who seek assistance because there is an overwhelming majority of women who will raise the said child versus men. It has NOTHING to do with a gender based privilege.

If a bio mother abandons the child at birth or later and bio dad is the party raising the child(meaning he has custody of the child), if dad files for assistance from the State, the State will find bio mom and petition a court to order her to pay child support.

In cases of divorces in Florida, the secondary residential custodian of the minor children is bound by law to pay child support to the primary residential custodian of the minor children REGARDLESS of genders. The primary residential custodian is free to file or not file. However the moment he/she will file, it is an automatic process via the court to order child support payments from the secondary residential custodian.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

So... Let's recap: If they're both underage, then they're both liable for the welfare of the child. If one of them is underage and the other over age, then only the over age person is liable because it's statutory rape.

How about this: What if a 15 year old rapes a 20 year old and she gets pregnant?

 

[Metaphor]

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.

This is not a mirror image of the OP scenario, since it is the state who is going after the man for child support because the mother petitioned for state assistance. If one reads the comments in the OP by the state officials, the genders are irrelevant because this is basically a strategy to minimize state support for children.

Then match the scenarios. The man goes to the State for welfare and the State garnishees the woman's wages for the welfare he successfully claims.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

So... Let's recap: If they're both underage, then they're both liable for the welfare of the child. If one of them is underage and the other over age, then only the over age person is liable because it's statutory rape.

How about this: What if a 15 year old rapes a 20 year old and she gets pregnant?

The state should then step in. Why is that difficult to figure out?

 

[Metaphor]

And you are going to whine about those biological fathers being compelled by law to provide financial support until the majority of the child or graduation from high school?

Speaking of the above, is it just me or have other participants to this same old same old topic noticed that the folks who tend to support what derec has been suggesting "any man should be able to renounce parental rights...etc" are folks who do not appear to have raised a child? That their thinking about parental responsibilities is limited to financial?

It is surely the case that if there's an explicit agreement to renounce parenthood (e.g. egg or sperm donation) or one party did not consent (stolen sperm, statutory rape), that person should not be obligated to provide any parenting if they don't want to?

I recall the case of the man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple, with no money changing hands, and the agreement that he would have no rights or obligations with respect to the child. The oouple split up, and the biological mother applied for State welfare -- and, of course -- then the biological father was on the hook.

A friend of mine donated an egg to an infertile couple a few years ago, and she is now the biological mother to their child. If that couple split up, should the State extract child support from my friend? Does that seem remotely fair to you?

 

[Metaphor]

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.

There are a lot of deranged opinions in this thread and this one hardly stands out. It was Solomonic wisdom that was concerned with the welfare of the baby. Somebody is going to get a raw deal out of this situation. Solomon says it's not going to be the baby. Others have more sympathy for the former 14 year old. There's arguments on both sides.

Why does someone have to get a raw deal, and if some individual does, would it not be true that an adult chosen at random in a lottery would in fact be getting a less raw deal than choosing the person who was raped? Of course, it would be better if no individual was unduly burdened, and that children with no suitable individual co-provider, the State becomes the co-provider. Indeed, in these cases, the State has been the co-provider -- until the State chose to mitigate its loss by going after someone who has no moral obligation whatever to the child. (In fact, I'd say worse: an adult chosen at random in the population has more moral obligation to the child than the person who was raped to produce it).

Your 'solution' reminds of Islamist 'justice'. Got raped? You've bought shame to your family and you committed a crime by being raped, so the State will compound the trespass against you and burden you even more.

 

[Bronzeage]

There are a lot of deranged opinions in this thread and this one hardly stands out. It was Solomonic wisdom that was concerned with the welfare of the baby. Somebody is going to get a raw deal out of this situation. Solomon says it's not going to be the baby. Others have more sympathy for the former 14 year old. There's arguments on both sides.

Why does someone have to get a raw deal, and if some individual does, would it not be true that an adult chosen at random in a lottery would in fact be getting a less raw deal than choosing the person who was raped? Of course, it would be better if no individual was unduly burdened, and that children with no suitable individual co-provider, the State becomes the co-provider. Indeed, in these cases, the State has been the co-provider -- until the State chose to mitigate its loss by going after someone who has no moral obligation whatever to the child. (In fact, I'd say worse: an adult chosen at random in the population has more moral obligation to the child than the person who was raped to produce it).

Your 'solution' reminds of Islamist 'justice'. Got raped? You've bought shame to your family and you committed a crime by being raped, so the State will compound the trespass against you and burden you even more.

There are merits to the idea that society will provide for the helpless and abandoned. The question becomes, do we sanction those who abandon others and leave them helpless? Can we declare this 14 year old boy to have been helpless and thus society takes up his responsibilities?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There are merits to the idea that society will provide for the helpless and abandoned. The question becomes, do we sanction those who abandon others and leave them helpless? Can we declare this 14 year old boy to have been helpless and thus society takes up his responsibilities?

What responsibilities are you talking about? He was raped. He has no responsibility for that.

 

[fast]

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.

No, a person that is guilty (legally speaking) is not therefore guilty. An innocent person that has committed no crime yet subsequently convicted is guilty (legally speaking), but we ought not therefore conclude that such a person is guilty. The lexical definition stands in strong contrast to the stipulative (hence, legal) definition.

I won't say the 20 year old is guilty, but I will say the 20 year old is guilty, where the former is legally speaking and the latter is not. Clearly, you're using the term as anyone in the legal field would, but if it's clear that she is guilty; hence, if it's clear that she committed the crime, then not being found guilty one way or the other because no charges were ever brought up has only a bearing on guilt in the legal sense--not the lexical sense.

Yes, maybe the legal sense is the only sense that matters to the courts in regards to legal issues, but we shouldn't let the convoluted different uses of words cloud our moral judgement. Outrage shouldn't be a function of a legal verdict--or lack thereof. Recall from what I said earlier, if a person has committed a crime, then that person is guilty of a crime. No differing legal usage is going to change that fact. We can presume innocence all we want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

He had something to do with the conception--he's liable for half the cost of the abortion.

I'll be more generous and say that he should pay the whole cost up front so there's no issue of being able to afford it.

And if she's not in a position to raise a kid and won't abort then she should have kept her legs together. Pregnancy is a risk of sex, you shouldn't have sex if you aren't prepared to deal with it. (Yeah, that sounds a lot like the pro-lifers. The big difference is that I consider abortion an acceptable way of dealing with it.)

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.

Much of the problem we have with child support decisions in this country is judges who aren't interested in looking at reality when it means he should pay less. Furthermore, why should a change in income necessitate a legal hearing to change the child support anyway? The IRS already has the data, use it!

The only time we need the courts is if there is an issue of deliberate under-earning or the like.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Exactly. Our laws are stuck in the stone age when there was only one decision involved.

Now there are two, they should be treated separately.

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.

Isn't that how strict Muslim cultures operate now?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Both parties have options to greatly reduce the chance of conception.

He has no realistic option to ensure there is no pregnancy other than not having sex at all. Even a vasectomy isn't 100.000%

She gets a second chance to fix a mistake, he doesn't.

And note a vasectomy isn't a good option for someone who wants kids later.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are advocating here pressuring pregnant women into terminating the pregnancy based on single parenting. There should be NO pressure placed on any pregnant woman to pursue or terminate their pregnancy.
Such legislation you are advocating would undeniably result in the State exercising a coercive role over her SCOTUS given right to pursue or terminate her pregnancy. I have already explained what the justification and motivation were leading to the Final Decision communicated in 1973. Again, it had nothing to do with parental responsibilities. That was not the burden undertaken by the Supreme Court Justices.

No. Reality puts a huge burden on the choice. We are just saying that it's unreasonable to impose on him in order to remove that burden.

 

[Bronzeage]

There are merits to the idea that society will provide for the helpless and abandoned. The question becomes, do we sanction those who abandon others and leave them helpless? Can we declare this 14 year old boy to have been helpless and thus society takes up his responsibilities?

What responsibilities are you talking about? He was raped. He has no responsibility for that.

So you you are going with "the helpless are not held responsible for their actions" principle.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And note a vasectomy isn't a good option for someone who wants kids later.

They're reversible (Sometimes spontaneously (as you mentioned, it's not 100%). But it's still an option, a choice.

Both parties have options to greatly reduce the chance of conception.

Yes. Derec and you just seem to want to be able to fuck the cake and eat it, too.

He has no realistic option to ensure there is no pregnancy other than not having sex at all.

Which was one of the choices i mentioned. As long as you choose to have sex instead of abstain, there's a risk that you might face consequences.

She gets a second chance to fix a mistake, he doesn't.

But her second chance is based on her control, ownership of her body. The male also has the same right, control over his body. Where he sticks his body or if he gets snipped. There's no basis for him to be able to impose an abortion on someone else, same as no woman can impose a vasectomy on a male.

 

[Metaphor]

There are merits to the idea that society will provide for the helpless and abandoned. The question becomes, do we sanction those who abandon others and leave them helpless? Can we declare this 14 year old boy to have been helpless and thus society takes up his responsibilities?

How did they become "his responsibilities"? I am not proposing mercy for a guilty party, I'm saying he isn't guilty in the first place.