Char. Limit said:Neo Devin, so you believe that a fifteen year old should be entrusted with such a major thing?
The issue is not whether or not he knows sex can lead to pregnancy but whether he is emotionally and intellectually mature enough to turn down an opportunity to have sex with a 19 year old (or, at least, to insist on birth control). We can find 10 year olds who know how babies are made, but it suddenly becomes less possible, because of their age, to ascribe responsibility to them if they are talked into sex by someone over 18. By your logic any sexual predator could avoid prosecution by explaining exactly how babies are made to their victim no matter what their age.Dembadon said:His immaturity doesn't blind him from the fact that having sexual intercourse with a female has the possibility of creating a child. I don't know a single 15 year old, and don't think I've ever met one, who does not know this. Sex education is often taught in middle school, and even if one hasn't taken a sex ed. course by the time they're 15 years old, you'd have a hard time convincing me that one doesn't know the consequences/possible results of copulation.
At 15, he is old enough to have a job. Asking for child support is not unreasonable.
Actually, I'm curious: what is your country, and what's your Native Language? I've never been able to figure it out from your use of English.DanP said:Im my country it's 15 years.
Informed Consent. As I have already noted many young people are held legally responsible for their actions when they are underage. The law acknowledges that a minor can do a thing of their own freewill even as it says that they are too young to make responsible decisions on their own. In the case of sex with an adult if they are unwilling, not just unable to render informed consent, then it is rape. If they willingly have sex with the adult then it is statutory rape because although they have rendered consent they are legally considered unable to render informed consent. And if the law did not differentiate between the two there would be something horribly wrong with the system. As much as I do not think that a 20 year old ought date a 15 year old I would not want to see the hapless person treated the same as someone who bashes a minor over the head and does as they will with their unconscious body.mgb_phys said:My understanding of the US law is that if one person is under-age it is not necessary to prove they were unwilling. The assumption is that they were not able to give consent - hence statutory rape, you only have to prove the act took place to get a conviction.
Its also not what is going on. It does not matter if you are a minor or an adult, if you have a child you are responsible for it. If the girl he'd had sex with was not over eighteen he would have still been responsible for child support. As BobG pointed out he has a legal responsibility to his child not to his victimizer. You say that he is too young and should not be expected to understand the consequences of his actions yet you seem to think that the example we should set for him is that he can have a kid and be allowed to abandon it on a technicality.Char. Limit said:A 15yo is a child. Thus, this is an example of an adult having sex with a child. Now, we are claiming that he is a minor on the sex, but an adult on the child. That. Makes. No. Sense.
TheStatutoryApe said:You say that he is too young and should not be expected to understand the consequences of his actions yet you seem to think that the example we should set for him is that he can have a kid and be allowed to abandon it on a technicality.
No, the law does not say that the kid has no choice regarding sex. The law says that the kid is unable to make informed choices about sex. As I have pointed out over and over again minors are held legally responsible for their decisions despite the law saying that they are incapable of informed decision.Averagesupernova said:Considering that the law states the 'kid' doesn't have a choice about having sex in the first place, then yeah, I'd say that's about right. So what? EVERY 15 year old boy wants to get in someones pants. What adult is this not news to? It is also EVERY adults responsibility to refrain from having sex with minors. Normally when a crime is comitted the victim is in some way compensated by the offender. So why not in this case? As far as I'm concerned any female that is impregnated by a minor should be required to give the child up for adoption if they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt able to raise the money on their own. Significant prison time should be a good deterent. Second offense? Use your imagination.
-
StatutoryApe, I would say more of a deterrent needs to be placed on the adult in these cases. You seem to have it backwards in my view.
Char. Limit said:Why don't we just give custody to the father, as the mother, by committing a felony, showed she's not responsible enough to raise a child alone?
This logic would be fine if there were also not a law against people over a certain age having sex with people under that age. It's an extremely important law. Without it pedophiles would descend on children in droves and with impunity as soon as they could get to them. Within a generation the population would be swollen with emotionally screwed up people who alternate between promiscuity, drugs, drinking and child seduction in turn. There'd be no end of unwanted pregnancies and a huge increase in gangs of feral kids trying to fend for themselves. It would become like the worst parts of the worst third world cities.TheStatutoryApe said:No, the law does not say that the kid has no choice regarding sex. The law says that the kid is unable to make informed choices about sex. As I have pointed out over and over again minors are held legally responsible for their decisions despite the law saying that they are incapable of informed decision.
The issue here is that there is a third person involved, the child. The child has rights and each parent has rights and responsibilities to the child. I am not talking about a deterrent for the minor, I am talking about the minor learning that there are consequences for their actions and not learning that because of circumstance they are allowed to ditch their responsibilities. No young person is led to believe that because they are a minor they hold no responsibility for damage that they inflicted upon property if they are vandals. If that minor is in the presence of an adult the adult will be held responsible for contributing the delinquency of the minor (victimizing the minor) but the minor will still be held responsible for the damage they caused. Why? Because they need to learn responsibility, not how to avoid responsibility.
So in this case we are talking about a young man who has parented a child. He is supposed to have legal rights and responsibilities to that child. The legality here is separate from the issue of his relationship with the mother. The child has not victimized him and so his responsibility there can not be removed. You might even say that the child is the victim of the stupid immaturity of its mother and father. And especially if he wishes to claim rights to the child (as he and his family are requesting custody) then he can not deny responsibility.
Char. Limit said:Why don't we just give custody to the father, as the mother, by committing a felony, showed she's not responsible enough to raise a child alone?
In what manner would you suggest teaching young males about taking responsibility for getting someone pregnant and having a child? Keeping in mind that he does in fact have a child out there and that not being made to have any responsibility for it runs counter to the notion of responsibility which you are attempting to instill in him.Averagesupernova said:There are plenty of ways teenagers can learn responsibility without being stuck for 18 years of child support through a parent that comitted statutory rape.
That seems like quite a slippery slope. I have not said that laws regarding statutory rape ought to be pushed back to an earlier age. I am referring to the law as it stands. As the law stands minors are held legally responsible for their actions, although usually to some lesser degree than adults, and this is probably important as otherwise minors would go about willy nilly reeking havoc on society... sex drugs rock and roll ... increased teen pregnancies ... poor single parent homes... babies dumped in trashcans... ect ect... because there are no consequences. The slope cuts both ways.zoobyshoe said:This logic would be fine if there were also not a law against people over a certain age having sex with people under that age. It's an extremely important law. Without it pedophiles would descend on children in droves and with impunity as soon as they could get to them. Within a generation the population would be swollen with emotionally screwed up people who alternate between promiscuity, drugs, drinking and child seduction in turn. There'd be no end of unwanted pregnancies and a huge increase in gangs of feral kids trying to fend for themselves. It would become like the worst parts of the worst third world cities.
...
You may feel the age of legal consent ought to be pushed back to 15 since a 15 year old can understand sexual reproduction, but I personally knew where babies came from at age 8, and I reached puberty at 11.
Sure.Zoob said:Averagesupernova is right: adults, legal adults, have to refrain from having sex with minors.
Never the less they (or their families) are held responsible for the children they produce. If she were under eighteen he would be held responsible. Why should this change simply because she should have known better? We are not talking about damages sustained as a result of her indiscretion. If she wanted money for an abortion I would not say he owed it. If she wanted money for hospital bills associated with the pregnancy even I would not agree. But we are talking about a living breathing human being that is possessed of rights its own. By asking for child support she is acting as a legal representative of the child to whom the support is owed. Equating the child to the victimizer and relinquishing its rights due to her indiscretions is not fair to the child.Zoob said:Minors aren't emotionally equipped to handle sex and all it's consequences.
I am focusing on the point of contention, that being the male and whether or not he should have to support his child. I do not believe I have relieved the mother of her guilt or responsibilities in any way. She is likely to go to prison. I have not said she should stay out of prison and squeeze this kid for all she can.Zoob said:I don't understand why you're focusing on this 15 year old guy when the 19 year old girl is really the one who needs a lesson on responsibility and consequences here. Is she still going to be going after 15 year olds when she's 35 and trying to squeeze child support out of them?
Averagesupernova said:Char. Limit has a good point.
Char. Limit said:Statutory, there is a better way...
give him custody of the child! Maybe that way he'll learn real responsibility instead of being a human wallet, only supporting his child financially.
-TheStatutoryApe said:If he and his family are capable of taking care of the child then sure. Though I do not see how this is any less of a burden to place upon a young man, whom we apparently can not expect to take responsibility for these actions, than asking him to pay $50 a month in child support.
TheStatutoryApe said:If he and his family are capable of taking care of the child then sure. Though I do not see how this is any less of a burden to place upon a young man, whom we apparently can not expect to take responsibility for these actions, than asking him to pay $50 a month in child support.
No problem. It was mostly a rhetorical question anyway.Averagesupernova said:I'm not going to get into specifics like you ask Statutory.
TheStatutoryApe said:No problem. It was mostly a rhetorical question anyway.
I will not deny that this is a rather muddy situation legally. If it were my decision I would likely withhold any responsibility for child support until he has turned eighteen unless he and his family attempt to take advantage of legal custody rights.
Averagesupernova said:-
Oh give me a break. His parents are interested in helping him get started raising the child.
Char. Limit said:It's not a lesser burden, yes. However, it is a more justifiable and indeed better burden to place upon the new father, whose parents support him; exactly the opposite of the felon mother.
I meant if I were the judge. And the child did not screw anyone over.Averagesupernova said:I screwed you over when you were a kid.