Dude, you're not legally old enough to make that decision because you're not mature and/or experienced enough to know better. Are you serious?
Where is all this concern in systems of Abortion? Why is this different that forcing a Rape Victim from having a child that results from the act? Are you not making an nonconsenting person responsible for the act of another? A bunch of Paternalistic Hypocracy When the 'victim' is a man . . well . ***** 'em . .he should man up . .. no justice for him . . no sympathy . . . just more responsibility. Switch the roles and folx are ready to kill someone. Rocket River
Meant to say WHERE is all this concern for the child in Abortion Cases???? When it is a woman . . .it's her choice .. her rights. . her this her that When it is a man . .its all of a sudden it is about the child?? So,. ***** him, his rights, his choices and what ever horse he came in on . . . Rocket River
I had a whole different reply planned when I realized the woman was 34 years old. Seriously? 34 years old. If you're out having sex with minors and become pregnant, you should really be capable of caring for the child yourself.
"dude", are you seriously telling me a 15 yr/old male shouldn't be responsible for his child because because he wasn't 'mature' or experienced enough to know better? When I was in high school, I had classmate that was 16 who was taking care of her 2 year old baby (with the help of her parents). She took responsibility without ever complaining. I guess in your world, we should tell 15 year olds it's okay to have babies because they'll be absolved of any responsibility and the state will just pay for kid.
I know but like Sam said, it's not to punish the father but rather to help the child. She should and has been punished but this is not what the court decision is about. In terms of responsibility, I view this just the same as if he impregnated another 15 year old. In terms of punishment for him, there isn't and shouldn't be any. FWIW, my hs classmate's baby's daddy was 18, but was in jail for another reason. She also got pregnant with the same guy right before the senior ball.
Its ALL about preserving the image of trashy ignorant DEADBEAT man. It doesnt matter if you're an innocent 14 year old kid or 50 year old physicist. As soon as you don't submit to the ways of the womb, you're in that same plane of deadbeatness. You receive the same shaming as "ghetto guy". They've already tried to make SPERM DONORS pay child support to LESBIAN couples (!) who artificially inseminated through the clinic. Some states you can just put a man's name on the birth certificate who you THINK is the father. And he's obligated to be in the father role. Even if the DNA evidence shows he's NOT the real father, if he was around the child for a significant time he'll be considered a fatherly presense, therefore still obligated. Its a narrow minded clerical move. Got Child/Find Father-By-Proxy To Pay Its the same as he if impregnated another 15 year old you're saying. Except he didnt. We can clearly see a 34 year old took advantage of him. A girl would at least have choice to abort. He's trapped. I think the issue is to set an example for teenage boys that "This can happen to YOU" if you're too promiscuous, keep it in your pants and get to studying. Cuz if you don't make them pay then it encourages them to bang freely. Though there's still a bit of double standard to it. Fair judgment or not, the point is to indicate that women aren't all tinkerbell fairies traipsing about accidentally get into predicaments. Treat scum like scum whatever the gender. They should give the man in that situation decision if HE wants to abort for equal justice.
It is the ultimate lunacy to call the male minor the victim of a crime and then turn around and garnish 20% of his paycheck to pay for the result of the crime.
The woman gets knocked up by him. Then she can turn around and start calling him a deadbeat and putting pressure on him, or HE'LL end up in jail for failure to pay? Why didnt SHE GIVE A CRAP about the possible lifestyle of the child? She's the gatekeeper of her body. She's not a public park. He can knock on the door 10 times a day, its still up to her to open up and let him in. "Yes, dear. Your mother went to jail for raping me. Thats how we had you. Then when I couldnt pay, I had to go to jail." Not that government is spendthrift, but its to alleviate the county from having a bigger tax burden. Passing off the costs. At the VERY least, the kid should get a 50% reduction on his payment obligation. 10% instead of 20, 9 years instead of 18. I know money is money, but whats a 37 year old woman really gonna get from a 16-18 year old's check? The guy is young enough to be her son. I'm sure she was sugar momma'ing HIM on down.
I'm up late doing some take home work so I'm a little tired, but never-the-less... I don't completely disagree with what you're saying, but there's a matter of scale. In the case the OP presented, after reading report, I think the court has made a decision in good faith and for the sake of the child. Had he been younger, or had mental issues, I might have different opinion. but like I said, it's a matter of scale and the judge deemed it appropriate to find the teenage father responsible. I agree with that decision for these reasons: 1.) I believe the teenage father was well aware the consequences of unprotected sex. I don't know what the legalities are, but I think he should take responsibility for it. If he can't, the state should take the child and makes him/her the ward-of-the-state. 2.) He will someday become 18 very shortly. Fine, I can agree that the state gives support (for the sake of the child), but after that point, it's hard to see otherwise unless the child is made the ward-of-the-state. 3.) I can't stressed this enough, but it's also matter of scale. Some examples mentioned before qualify for complete state support, but in this case, I think the judge who knows more about this case, made the right decision. 4.) It's not about punishing the teenage parent. He's not going to jail or paying the state a fine, fee or whatever. He's asked to support his child because it's his own. He should not go to jail but rather, have his wages garnished for one reason and one reason only, to support his child. Don't see it as a punishment, but a duty. Refman has a good point, but I think it's unreasonable to relieve all financial responsibility from the father, either now or when he turns 18. I think the OP misunderstood the meaning of statutory rape and mistook the intent of the judge's decision. In whatever-case, I think the judge made a correct call in this particular case. Note: I support the father's say in abortion decisions.
He is a father as the result of the crime he was a victim of. It is akin to having a guy pushed off a building and forcing his family to pay for the street sweepers. It is simply illogical. If you want him to be on the hook for child support, decriminalize a woman having sex with an underage male. The act that led to him being a victim of a crime and the act that led to him being a father are, in fact, the same act.
The child support is in the interest of the child. The child did not commit the crime against the father. The father should have some recourse for the child support he owes to the child, he should be able to get it back from the mother.
If he was going to get it back from the mother, just do not have him pay it in the first place and call it even.
The baby's interests come first, even before the interest of the father. Although the father is a victim here, this is not the baby's fault. And it is in the baby's interest to have a claim both against the father and the mother. Therefore, you make a mistake when you say "call it even", as the baby's claim against the father cannot be offset against a claim the father would have against the mother.
The baby's interests shouldn't supercede the man's right not to be sexually violated. If, for example, a woman stole semen from a fertility clinic you would advocate the man who provided the semen have to pay support for a child conceived via a criminal act? At least in this hypothetical context, the man could legally consent to provide the semen that was stolen unlike the minor in the aforementioned case.
