What if, in order to destroy his chance to opt out, he’s not told there ever was a pregnancy or a baby until 6 years down the road?
Well a woman could abort for any reason at all, perhaps she said she loved the guy and wanted to have a child with him but then she meets some one ‘better’ who doesn’t want a pregnant woman so she goes and aborts it thus negating any contract she had with the guy she said she wanted to raise a kid with.
If either one of them can change their mind, they both should be able to.
Really? You think a man should be able to abandon his pregnant wife at any time and bear no financial responsibility? What a wonderful world that would be for women and for children. :rolleyes:
Personally, I’m from a school of thought that says a guy like that should be beaten down like a dog but maybe that’s just me.
Your analogy to a woman suddenly deciding to abort is bogus, because the termination of the pregnancy does not leave the man any responsibilities or committments, and it doesn’t abandon a child.
What about a scenerio where a woman pretends to take the pill but doesn’t, and pokes holes in condoms in order to get pregnant, than she says “I’m pregnant and I’m having a baby no matter what and you’ll hardly ever see the kid but you’ll have to pay hundreds of dollars in child support every month and I’m leaving you forever.”
Ah, you do the dance of this argument by the textbook. I’m going to respond to your statement with some typical Critical Legal Studies arguments that you know are coming- and my own thoughts, which you might not anticipate.
There are basically two different ways to think about equality, and about it’s opposite - mysoginy, racism, whatever. One school of thought, the one you want to advocate, treats different groups absoltuely equally under the law. That is, we dont want affirmative action because law must be colorblind, we dont want to saddle sexes with unequal responsibilities because law shouldn’t care about race.
This is all fine in Conservative Fantasy Land, where unicorns in little hats run around with George W. Bush riding on their backs. In reality, there are real differences in your life depending on what group you are in. African Americans (statistically) end up getting the short end of the stick just because of the color of their skin. Women can get pregnant.
If the law IGNORES these differences it is not advocating equality at all- it is advocating that the natural inequalities of the sexes should be perpetuated. There’s no difference between the government not passing a law to STOP the practice of men ditching women and the government passing a law that ENCOURAGES men to ditch women if the end result is that the same number of women get ditched.
So yes, I think when you deny that the biological differences between men and women are grounds for different treatment under the law, you are being mysoginistic. All the equality rhetoric in the world will not change the simple fact that women have to physically carry the baby for nine months, postponing their careers, enduring physical hardship, etc, and men do not. Law must take this distinction into account.
Personally, I agree that law should be colorblind and sexblind, but I have a different spin on it that you seem to. I would rather see the law never make distinctions based on minority groups or gender- away with you, Affirmative Action- and replace it with the disadvantages that the minority status was a proxy for. i.e. have quotas for inner city children, lower income people, or people from particular regions.
In this case, I would replace “women” with “people who are pregnant” in the laws concerned. For now though, since men can’t get pregnant at all, I dont see any harm in treating women as a whole differently.
As with my above post, you forget that there simply are real differences in the way men and women approach sex. Though times ARE changing, women are still the ones who usually get pressured into it. And rape- hell, whens the last time you heard of a guy getting raped?
Ignoring that women are usually are not the instigators of this situation makes your analogy complete, but that just isnt reality…
Why not? She can abort at any time and abandon her family. Hell she can just not tell the husband that she’s pregnant and take off making sure he never sees the kid, wait 10 years and then go after him for back child support for a kid he never even knew existed.
but the computer ate it. So, I’ll right a shorter version.
Razorsharp, the problem with your theory is that you assume that the timing of the issuing of the decisions in Roe and Gomez makes a difference. It does not.
Your argument is that the decisions in Gomez and Roe conflict - if Roe had come out before Gomez,Gomez could not have been decided the way it was.* Therefore, the Supreme Court delayed Roe to allow for the Gomez decision.
If they had done so, the only person harmed was Gomez. If Roe and Gomez did in fact conflict, then the next father in Texas who did not wish to support his illegitimate child would have sued to have his support order revoked on the grounds that the Texas child support law was unconstitutional under the Roe decision.
Your premise assumes that no one in the Texas domestic law bar ever read Roe and Gomez, even though both are are the heart of their practice.
Further, if Gomez and Roe conflicted, any one of a mess of pro-life legal institutions would have lept at the opportunity to try to overturn Roe by pointing to the alleged conflict with Gomez, and arguing that Gomez is the better law. There would be no downside for them - win, and Roe is overturned. Lose, and they aren’t worse off then they were before.
So, your premise also assumes that all the attorneys at every Christian law school, pro-life organization, and conservative legal institutions have never read Gomez and have never realized that it conflicted with Roe.
So either you have uncovered something that everyone else has missed concerning the most instensely debate legal decision of the past thirty years, or there is no conflict.
The answer is, there is no conflict. They address different issues of law.
Ah, you’re playin’ my song, and it’s time to do a little more dancin’.
Liberalism and feminism, two ideologys attached at the head to form a doctrine of comtemptable hypocrisy. Not only is the concept of “freedom of choice” to be held exclusively to a favored group, having a remedy to the crime of rape is to belong solely to the favored group as well.
In 1992, a twelve year old Kansas boy, Shane Seyer, was sexually molested, repeatedly, over a period of several months, by his babysitter. As a result of the sexual activity, the sixteen year old babysitter became pregnant. The babysitter, Colleen H. (the name has been changed to protect the guilty), was initially charged with statutory rape (“indecent liberties with a child” in Kansas) but plea-bargained to a lesser charge – “contributing to a child’s misconduct.”
When Colleen H. and her baby applied for welfare benefits, the state went after the father for child support payment.
In 1993, the Kansas state supreme court ruled that just because Shane Seyer was molested and raped by his babysitter at age 12, he had no cause to be relieved of 18 years of child-support payments. The Kansas Supreme Court wrote,“We conclude that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity.”
The Court ruled that “in an action by the State against a minor father for reimbursement of funds paid for support of his child, the fault or wrongdoing of the mother at the time of conception, even if criminal, has no bearing on the father’s duty to support such child.”
Did you get that? “Even if criminal”. So, according to the Kansas Supreme Court, a man could be abducted, restrained and a semen specimen extracted, (it really wouldn’t be all that hard) and he would still be responsible for a child that resulted from the illicit use of that “specimen”
Can you imagine the cacophony of shrieks from the “sisterhood” had a court ordered a twelve year old girl to have the baby of her rapist? But there was nothing but silence from the “sisterhood”, you know, those so-called advocates of “freedom of choice”. Evidently it’s okay to rape little boys, you may even get the judiciary to force the victim pay you for your crime.
Whenever I hear a feminist whine, in that peculiar odious tone, about rape as a justification for what is termed as “freedom of choice”, I am repulsed by the glaring hypocrisy.
[quote]
As with my above post, you forget that there simply are real differences in the way men and women approach sex. Though times ARE changing, women are still the ones who usually get pressured into it.
[quote]
Are you seriously suggesting that we should always assume men to be the aggresors and women are simply helpless passive recipients who never initiate or desire sex on their own? Such an assumption is an insult to all notions of equality.
Here’s why the timing does matter. Had the Court decided “Roe” prior to “Gomez”, the defense counsil for Gomez could have cited the precedent set in “Roe” of “privacy”.
As for subsequent cases, High Courts have the option to refuse to hear them and let the lower court rulings stand.
As I said, it may have affected Gomez, but not the next guy to come along.
Further, from the timing, the attorneys for Wade could have cited the precedent set in Gomez in the Roe case and won.
Why didn’t they?
But the issue would be raised in the lower federal courts. Even if the Supremes would refuse to hear them, the lower courts cannot refuse to hear them. If a party claimed in litigation that there was a conflict between Roe and Gomez, the district court would have to determine whether such a conflict existed and, if so, which decision should be considered the controlling law.
And one district court would decide one way, and another court the other way. There would be conflicts in the decisions and the Circuit Court of Appeals for the respective district courts would take up a case to resolve the conflict - which case was the controlling law.
So, even if the Supreme Court decided never to take up the issue again (an odd decision that would surely be noted by Supreme Court watchers), there would be trial court and appellate court cases where the issue has been addressed and decided.
But there aren’t any.
If the conflict exists, people would raise the issue and courts would address it. If people have not raised it in court, it is because the conflict doesn’t exist.
While the concept of “freedom of choice” is compatible with the ideas of individual freedom and liberty that are the foundations of American society, the concept of “a woman’s right to choose”, as it relates to “Roe vs. Wade”, is more closely akin to the tyranny of “rule by decree”.
The “pro-choice” orthodoxy not only demands that a pregnancy be deemed a “choice”, but also a “civil-right”.
Case-in-point: While under contract to a television studio to portray a role in a daytime television drama that involved scenes depicting partial nudity, the actress, Hunter Tylo, became pregnant. Rather than making the “choice” to terminate the pregnancy, Ms. Tylo chose to continue her pregnancy to term. As a result of the “choice” that she made, her obvious pregnancy prevented her from portraying the role in which she was under contract to fulfill and the studio properly terminated her contract.
Subsequently, Ms. Tylo sued the studio for wrongful termination and, in an act of judicial insanity, was awarded a multi-million dollar judgment.
The two definitions, one being a “choice” and the other being a “civil-right”, for the same human condition, are not compatible in a society that bases it’s legal system on the “rule of law”. This is an example of arbitrary law.
You’ve (predictably, and with some vailidity) got your finger on the primary complaint about Critical Race Theory, Feminist studies, and all of that. You’re arguing that these theories are really nothing more than covers for groups to push their special interests. And to a certain extent, that’s true. You have totally ignored my point that this is a GOOD thing because, in the areas these special interest groups advocate, they are the subject of non-government (biological, in this case) inequality
You cite State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer as if it proves that men are discriminated against when they are raped, but I dont see how it establishes that at all. This is a case where the court was faced with a VERY hard case. This is a case of two public policies coming to a head. “In the instant case, we find that the public policy mandating parental support of children overrides any policy of protecting a minor from improvident acts.” State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, 847 P.2d at 1278 (citing some Illinois case for this rule.)
On the one hand, they could rule that statutory rape is an affirmative defense against a demand for child care payments… but if they do this, they will cause monsterous problems in all situations of high school pregnancy. Consider the effect of that ruling on boys: anyone with an older girlfriend can screw her and leave her, no problem. The formal language of this case applies to BOTH genders, so consider the effect on girls: they arn’t responsible for their child; they can abort or whatever on their own violition. (Despite what you imply, this is NOT legal in Kansas.)
On the other hand, they could rule that statutory rape is not an affirmative defense. But the court is aware of the miscarriage of justice that this would cause in some cases, so they don’t make a blanket rule- in Realist fashion, they try to get at what is equitable * in this case*.
“Although the question of whether the intercourse with Colleen was “voluntary,” as the term is usually understood, is not specifically before us, it was brought out in oral argument before this court that the sexual relationship between Shane and his baby sitter, Colleen, started when he was only 12 years old and lasted over a period of several months. At no time did Shane register any complaint to his parents about the sexual liaison with Colleen.” State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, 847 P.2d at 1277.
Yes, there is a little tongue-in-cheek action going on here, I admit. But the court is trying to find a solution to a difficult problem, and relies heavily on In re Paternity of J.L.H., 149 Wis.2d 349, 441 N.W.2d 273 (1989), which held “We reject appellant’s assertion that because he was fifteen years old when he had intercourse with L.H., he was incapable of consent.” Id at 355. That is, the court is DEFINETLY makind a nod to the facts of this case in their ruling; this was NOT A CASE OF RAPE. It was a question of the foolishness of youth, corruption of a child.
You make a big deal over the fact that the court says explictly “We conclude that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity.” Hermesmann, 847 P.2d at 1277. But what the court is talking about here is that the presumption of consent for criminal purposes is not the same as the issue of consent to be applied in cases like the one at bar. The court would have ruled in a very different way if it was clear from the facts that the sexual encounter was non-consentual in the way you suggest. The court just refuses to say that the criminal definition of consent is applicable.
This case is bad for support for another reason- the court complains at length that the record provided to them was pretty shoddy. All they know about the facts came from the briefs and oral arguments- someone fucked up with the record below.
A later case discriminating Hermensmann said " The cases are very few, as we have seen, and most of them involve a female rather than male violator of the sex statutes, reflecting the traditional, and still widely accepted, view that the unmarried mother has greater rights than the man who impregnated her because the burdens of pregnancy always and of parenting usually are greater for the mother than for the father." Pena v. Mattox, 84 F.3d 894, 901, C.A.7 (Ill.),1996.
Is this really a political philosophy that you differ with, or is it a statement of the facts of life?
I am aware that what I am about to type may destroy the possibility of rational debate here, but I fear that there can be no rational debate here.
Razorsharp, I suspect that you are putting forth a conspiracy theory. Your theory requires the following to be true.
The Court, 30 years ago, decided that they wished to come to decisions in Gomez and Roe that conflicted with each other;
To accomplish this, they held off announcing Roe so they could sneak the Gomez decision out;
Despite the fact that both decisions are published and available to the public and legal community, no one but you has noticed that the cases conflict in the thirty years since the cases were handed down, and therefore no one has ever raised the issue of the conflict in court.
Should anyone finally notice that the cases conflict, the Supreme Court, despite the fact that it has radically changed composition and ideology over the past thirty years, will refuse to hear any case that requires them to resolve the conflict, just in order to keep screwing fathers of illegitimate children.
You conspiracy requires a cast of millions acting in concert - the attorneys for Wade in Roe, federal and state judges, attorneys, pro-lifers, fathers paying support - in a conspiracy of silence never to raise the alleged conflict between Roe and Gomez, even though raising the conflict would benefit a large number of them (e.g., pro-lifers, fathers paying support, the Wade attorneys).
Add that to the fact that, as a matter of substantive law, there is no conflict between the two decisions, and your theory does not fit the criteria of a rational belief.
I think Razor’s point is not to harp on the political machinations of the court. We could bitch about that all day, but let’s face it, the court has always been political. Can you say Lochner? I think he’s really just trying to expose the problem of how gender equality is handled judicially, and advocating a change based on what he claims is a logical inconsistancy.
Rational debate is totally possible when you have conflicting assumptions, like here. The problem is he’s not going to be convinced by anything that doesn’t change his underlying assumptions about CLS.