People, I’m about to remove the posts from the latest incarnation of our old…friend. Please, don’t respond to someone if you think he’s a troll. He likes the attention, even negative attention. I might have to remove some other posts, too, if you have responded mostly to him.
Lynn
Administrator
For the Straight Dope
**
I’m going to try arguing within the framework you’ve established here. But let me add this caveat: I’m allowing it to act as the basis in this case, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with it. It only means that I think arguing about it would be a) futile and b) a hijack.
I think wring already did a pretty good job of addressing the reasoning behind joint responsibility in the case of sex: it takes an ovum, a womb, and a sperm to create a baby. That is the reason that both parents are held responsible for the baby, which is just as much a consequence of the sex act for the man as for the woman. The pregnancy, now, that is a consequence just for the woman, and that’s the responsibility that she assumes by herself - she is the one who has to carry and care for the fetus, her body’s resources are diverted to support it, etc. But the baby, once born, is a joint creation - he supplied the sperm, she supplied the ovum and the womb - and thus a joint responsibility. Both of them will have to care for it and both their resources will be diverted to support it.
So, when (heterosexual) people have sex, what they are saying is:
Female: I am willing to have sex with you. I know that this can result in certain consequences for me, including pregnancy, childbirth, and a baby. I assume that risk.
Male: I am willing to have sex with you. I know that this can result in certain consequences for me, including a baby. I assume that risk.
See what I’m getting at here? You’re falsely equating the pregnancy with the baby. They are not the same thing. That the pregnancy is a consequence only for the female - well, yeah, that’s biology, and that sucks, but we all just gotta deal. But the baby is its father’s creation just as much as its mother’s; they both made the choice to bring it into being, and they both bear the responsibility for it.
Nope, quite right, it doesn’t. (Btw, this is not much of an emotional issue for me. Since I’m a lesbian, these situations are more or less inapplicable to my personal life; in fact, the father’s-rights-and-responsibilities are actually an inconvenience for my partner and I, since if we ever had children using semen from a known donor outside a clinic setting, these same laws would make it possible for the father to sue for custody or visitation no matter what the prior agreement. So we can’t use that method, which is the one we’d prefer. But even though it is inconvenient for us, that doesn’t make it wrong.)
However, I wasn’t saying that you were immature because you disagreed with me. I was saying that responsibility is a fundamental condition of adulthood, and without an understanding and assumption of same, you cannot be fully adult or fully mature.
OK, I asked for that.
“Rights” was probably not the best phrase for me to choose, but the phrase “rights and responsibilities” is so euphonious - and so entrenched - that I didn’t think I had to worry about it. So let me clarify. When I said adults had “rights” to certain things, I did not mean they were guaranteed those things; I meant they had the opportunity to have those things. In other words, home ownership would be an example of a right of adulthood as I used the phrase above: you cannot do it unless you are an adult, but not all adults get to do it.
My word choice was poor. What I should have said is “privileges and responsibilities.” Property ownership, independence, sex: these are the privileges of adulthood, not rights. You can have them, but you are not guaranteed them - and if you choose to have them, they all come with responsibilities attached.
I saw this same situation on Court TV a couple of days ago! It was on one of the morning shows, with that real thin Black lady judge, and not the one on the Divorce Court. That’s where this post has to come from!! Not only had it been 5 years, but the woman was living with another guy and as soon as the father had left, she moved in with another boyfriend, who was not her current one. The father was really mad! From the mouth on her and her attitude, I figure he had reasons to split, but the judge found that he had to pay child support anyhow, but because of the woman’s lack of notifying him for 5 years, she did not make him pay her back support.
It was all suspicious, because there she was, having lived with a couple of guys and was still living with one and suddenly, going after the father for child support. Neither she, her child nor the boyfriend exactly looked like they were doing poorly, so it seemed to me, and the Judge, that she was simply getting greedy.