18 Year Old Female Child-Predator Pregnant By 12 Year Old Boy....

[Jedi Knight]

....and not only will the chick not be charged (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2442750a10,00.html) for that nasty crime, the 12 year old boy has to pay child support for the baby. LOL.

That is a classic example of matriarchal totalitarian terror. They are going to steal that kid's paper-route money to pay for a kid conceived through matriarchal pedophilia.

Now if some guy went out and got some 12 year old girl pregnant, the radical leftist matriarchal totalitarian terrorists would be screaming for his castration and life imprisonment and adding him to sex-offender lists planet-wide.

But since it is a chick, hey, no goddamned problem whatsoever.

OK leftists, explain this one away.

JK

[Clancie]

Now if some guy went out and got some 12 year old girl pregnant, the radical leftist matriarchal totalitarian terrorists would be screaming for his castration and life imprisonment and adding him to sex-offender lists planet-wide.

At least you never overstate your case.:rolleyes:

But since it is a chick, hey, no goddamned problem whatsoever.

Pamela Smart went to prison. Remember?

OK leftists, explain this one away
Well, unless it was a case of molestation or abuse, why should the mother bear the full responsibility for care all alone?

Why shouldn't both parents share some responsibility for the baby they created together? I don't see the 12 year old father being saddled with the sole burden for it at all here.

And, personally, I don't think it's such a bad idea for a 12 year old boy to learn that if his sperm helps to create a child, he has some responsibilities to that child--even if it means giving up money from his paper route to do it.

Maybe he'll be a little more careful next time, and not just assume "I get sex whenever I want it, and if a baby's born, who cares? That part's always the girl's responsibility".

[Cleopatra]

Clancy, although I am not talented enough to make the suitable comments on the post of Jedi Knight, we must admit that he is right about the age of the boy.

Under 13 years old, we are talking about children. Children can't be parents or be expected to behave as such.

In Europe, the 18 years old girl would have to answer in many questions in the court room...

[Goshawk]

Twenty-eight boys aged between 13 and 15 who have fathered children are being forced to pay child support...So there are 27 other teenage boys who are also being forced to support the babies they fathered. So what?

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time..." ;)

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Clancy, although I am not talented enough to make the suitable comments on the post of Jedi Knight, we must admit that he is right about the age of the boy.

Under 13 years old, we are talking about children. Children can't be parents or be expected to behave as such.

In Europe, the 18 years old girl would have to answer in many questions in the court room... But this was in New Zealand - and according to the article, the girl didn't commit a crime. ;)

[Cleopatra]

Yes I read it too but if you take the time to visit the site of Unicef you will see the definition of the word child :)

Not only in NZ but I am positive that there are many other countries that this wouldn't be considered a crime.
Too bad.
Because it is.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes I read it too but if you take the time to visit the site of Unicef you will see the definition of the word child :)

Not only in NZ but I am positive that there are many other countries that this wouldn't be considered a crime.
Too bad.
Because it is. We can agree upon that.

However, it is very difficult to see how this case is a result of some 'radical leftist matriarchal totalitarian terrorist' action.

All persons quoted in the article about how the kid has to pay are men, the only one defending him is a woman.

Further, the laws of New Zealand have always been made by a majority of men. :( Jedi didn't read his own source, as usual. :p

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Bjorn
However, it is very difficult to see how this case is a result of some 'radical leftist matriarchal totalitarian terrorist' action.



Yes, this was exactly the part of his post that made me declare that I an incapable to comment it ...

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
We can agree upon that.

However, it is very difficult to see how this case is a result of some 'radical leftist matriarchal totalitarian terrorist' action.

All persons quoted in the article about how the kid has to pay are men, the only one defending him is a woman.

Further, the laws of New Zealand have always been made by a majority of men. :( Jedi didn't read his own source, as usual. :p

Oh so when women rape children it is "cool and fashionable"? :eek:

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Clancy, although I am not talented enough to make the suitable comments on the post of Jedi Knight, we must admit that he is right about the age of the boy.

Under 13 years old, we are talking about children. Children can't be parents or be expected to behave as such.

In Europe, the 18 years old girl would have to answer in many questions in the court room...

No, under 18 we are talking about "children".

JK

[Cleopatra]

Well... rape... Let's avoid to describe facts we are not aware of . Having sex with an underage is a crime serious enough even if she didn't rape him ( edited to add) even if NZ's Laws do not prohibit sex between women and children... ( this is a lawyer's invention of course...)

[Clancie]

Is it rape for a 17 year old to have sex with a 13 year old? (Just wondering. You've got me wondering how the law defines all this).

If an 18 year old male having consensual sex with a 12 year old girl is a crime, then the same should hold true for an 18 year old female having consensual sex with a 12 year old boy.

That said, if its a crime, the girl should receive the legal punishment.

But, if it was consensual--not arguably rape or molestation (or even seduction, like Pamela Smart)--the boy still should contribute to the responsibility of raising a baby. (How much to contribute would have to be based on many factors. But, even if its only a symbolic payment, I think there's a lesson to be learned there, even at 12).

[Cleopatra]

Clancy.

Rape hasn't anything to do with ages.

Now the question is about what you call consensual sex. Law doesn't recognize this "term" between an adult and an underage.This applies only to adult partners.

A child, according to the legislation and above all,according to common logic, can't really consent in having sex with an adult.

The fact that the underage was a boy doesn't make any difference. Do you think that boys are more matured as children than girls and they are able to give their consent?

[schplurg]

Under the Crimes Act a 12-year-old girl could be considered a victim of a sexual crime if an 18-year-old man had sex with her.

But sex between women and children is not prohibited – as The Dominion Post highlighted in the case of a female swimming coach who had sex with a 13-year-old swimming champion.
Well gee that's the problem right there. Double standard. A disgusting one too.

I'm curious as to the reason for this double standard. Is it because boys aren't (normally) penetrated? What about the issue of an adult being in a position of authority, and using it to his/her advantage, like the swimming coach? Can't a woman do this to a boy as easily as a man could? Why doesn't that issue come into play?

Is it legal for an adult female schoolteacher to seduce her 12 year-old, or even younger, male student? If so why?
But, if it was consensual--not arguably rape or molestation (or even seduction, like Pamela Smart)--the boy still should contribute to the responsibility of raising a baby.
I totally disagree. Of course I'm thinking of U.S. law, but I don't think a 12 year old should be forced to pay anything, since he's a child. That's the responsibility of the participating adult. There's a reason why people aren't considered adults at 12 and the "age of consent" is 18. This whole thing is f****n sick man.

[Clancie]

Cleopatra,

It's quite likely this 18 year old female was only 17 when she got pregnant. In that case, they would technically both have been children at the time. I'm not sure what the law says about sex between two minors, or how age difference factors into it.

I think I've said that if its a crime for an 18 year old male it should also be a crime for an 18 year old female, imo, under similar circumstances. But you're making a good point about the bigger picture.

Do you think that both parents should have some responsibility to the child, perhaps not necessarily in the same proportion, depending on circumstances? Or do you think there's an age below which a child should not have to be responsible for a baby?

And what is the role of age and responsibility? I mean, hypothetically, if a 17 year old girl encouraged my son to have intercourse with her, then she had his baby, is he equally responsible with her? Or does she have more responsibility than he, just because she's so much older?

What if, instead, the 17 (or 18) year old girl was very socially awkward and naive, and the 12 year old was quite mature for his age and persuasive and eager for sexual experience with her?

Do you think the responsibility each has to a baby would be the same in both cases?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Oh so when women rape children it is "cool and fashionable"? :eek:

JK No. And nobody said so. If you had posted the story without the 'feminazi matriarchal totalitarian' silliness that has become a fashion of yours, I guess most people here would have just agreed with you, the laws in New Zealand seem to be different for males and females and I really cannot see a good reason for it.

I posted what is quoted below to show how you, once again, blame something on women when men are in fact to blame. Next time, just do your homework and you'll be fine. :p

However, it is very difficult to see how this case is a result of some 'radical leftist matriarchal totalitarian terrorist' action.

All persons quoted in the article about how the kid has to pay are men, the only one defending him is a woman.

Further, the laws of New Zealand have always been made by a majority of men.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Oh so when women rape children it is "cool and fashionable"? :eek:

JK

Sexual predation of children by women, while rarer than by men, still occurs.

The problem lies in the laws, which are obviously out of date. The sex laws in Victoria, for example, were totally revised about 15 years ago. Using modern PC language, they have removed all reference to gender. This women would be guilty of rape.

[subgenius]

Somehow I would bet he doesn't oppose 12 year olds being charged as adults in crimes, or being executed.

[Clancie]

originally posted by A Unique Person

This women would be guilty of rape

Would the law say the same thing if she was 17 at the time it happened?

[Clancie]

originally posted by subgenius

Somehow I would bet he doesn't oppose 12 year olds being charged as adults in crimes, or being executed.

Yes, as long as they're 12 year old females. ....:rolleyes: (After all, that means fewer feminazi matriarchal totalitarians available for breeding later on!)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Clancy
Cleopatra,

It's quite likely this 18 year old female was only 17 when she got pregnant. In that case, they would technically both have been children at the time.

No way. The "baby", according to the radical left, isn't even a human being until it pops out of the matriarchal pedophile and "exists" on its own. That has already been hammered out in the the courts here dozens of times, although there still isn't a true consensus on abortion in the United States. But the definition the radical left always whines about is a "person" is not a "person" until it is out of the womb. Also, the article specifically states that she had sex with the kid when she was 18.

The bottom line is this. In the United States, if a person is 18 and they have sex with someone who is 17.999 years old or younger, that is statutory rape. You cannot enter into contracts with minors. Sex and its potential outcomes (having children) is a contract.

But lets use common sense here, just this once. Can a 12 year old boy who had sex with an 18 year old chick be held responsible for it? Not in the US he wouldn't. That chick would be in handcuffs on her way to jail. (while the radical left said she was a "victim" and did everything they could to free her).

People can't do what they want just because they think they can. There are laws. It is the responsibility of the citizen to know what the laws are. Every adult knows that having sex with 12 year old kids is a sickness, a jail cell being the cure.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Also, the article specifically states that she had sex with the kid when she was 18.No it doesn't. If you believe so, show where.

The bottom line is this. In the United States, if a person is 18 and they have sex with someone who is 17.999 years old or younger, that is statutory rape. You cannot enter into contracts with minors. Sex and its potential outcomes (having children) is a contract.

But lets use common sense here, just this once. Can a 12 year old boy who had sex with an 18 year old chick be held responsible for it? Not in the US he wouldn't.
JK This happened in New Zealand, and the laws are, unfortunately, different. Patriarchal malenazi totalitarian country! :mad:

Those laws are, by the way, made by men.

The only one speaking for the boy in the article you quoted, is a woman. :p

[The Fool]

OMG...the Dominion post?? JK you really are having to dig deep for fresh spam.

[Pyrrho]

Have to side with JK on this one -- except for the matriarchal totalitariwhatsis screed. If it's a crime for an adult man to have sex with a 12-year old, it should be a crime for an adult woman to do so. She's 18, old enough to know better, and old enough to use contraception. She's the adult: the child should be her sole responsibility unless the "father" voluntarily chooses to help. All too often sex crimes against boys are ignored if adult women are the perpetrators, and we all know how long the Catholic church ignored such crimes when the perpetrators were men.

The term "age of consent" was invented for a reason. The world has enough cultures that use and abuse children. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

[Denise]

Cheese and Rice! There is a huge difference between an 18 year old and a twelve year old! The woman is a pedophile and she should be locked up. He should not be forced to support the baby and I think it would be nice if the boy's parents were able to take custody from her. If a priest had sex with the boy, most people would agree that it's molestation.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Clancy
Cleopatra,

It's quite likely this 18 year old female was only 17 when she got pregnant. In that case, they would technically both have been children at the time. I'm not sure what the law says about sex between two minors, or how age difference factors into it.

I think I've said that if its a crime for an 18 year old male it should also be a crime for an 18 year old female, imo, under similar circumstances. But you're making a good point about the bigger picture.

Do you think that both parents should have some responsibility to the child, perhaps not necessarily in the same proportion, depending on circumstances? Or do you think there's an age below which a child should not have to be responsible for a baby?

And what is the role of age and responsibility? I mean, hypothetically, if a 17 year old girl encouraged my son to have intercourse with her, then she had his baby, is he equally responsible with her? Or does she have more responsibility than he, just because she's so much older?

What if, instead, the 17 (or 18) year old girl was very socially awkward and naive, and the 12 year old was quite mature for his age and persuasive and eager for sexual experience with her?

Do you think the responsibility each has to a baby would be the same in both cases?

Clancy. First of all I wonder if we can continue having this conversation in this thread, where very harsh but above all irrelevant things, have been said.

I don't want to "legitimize" the existence of threads that are started just to provoke people, try to guide the discussion towards a specific direction, so as to drug specific conclusions out of it.... I think that this kind of predictable discussions are a waste of time.

I am not willing to take part in this game. Are you? :)

Could could you, or anybody else, be so kind to start another thread on the topic? I think that we would have many things to say :)

[Jedi Knight]

bump...vote me off the island, commies.

JK

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Clancy
[/B]
Well, unless it was a case of molestation or abuse, why should the mother bear the full responsibility for care all alone?

Why shouldn't both parents share some responsibility for the baby they created together? I don't see the 12 year old father being saddled with the sole burden for it at all here.

And, personally, I don't think it's such a bad idea for a 12 year old boy to learn that if his sperm helps to create a child, he has some responsibilities to that child--even if it means giving up money from his paper route to do it.

Maybe he'll be a little more careful next time, and not just assume "I get sex whenever I want it, and if a baby's born, who cares? That part's always the girl's responsibility". [/B]

The kicker is that if the situation was reversed, the younger woman wouldn't be expected to pay child support and the older guy would be in jail.

I think the reason why this happens is that we seem to have the view that females are innocent anf pure and have to be seduced into sex, while males are considered inherently corrupt.

And before JK cries conspiracy, this is a view held and espoused by men long before feminism showed up.

[Checkmite]

I'm forced to agree with Jedi on this one (though I would happily agree with Denise...I must already be a slave to the Matriarchal Femilluminati, hehe). At 12 years old, nobody thinks, acts, and considers consequences like an adult. Come on guys....picture yourself in this situation at that age. What would be going through your mind?

This is a case of an adult woman who took advantage of a kid. There's absolutely no way in hell you can blame the boy for this transgression - "Yes, that'll teach him not to cave into temptation next time." Oh, sure, he'll learn very quickly that particular actions have devastating consequences. But the child doesn't deserve this.

The best possible reaction would be for the boy's parents to adopt the baby until the father is old and stable enough to take care of it. I suppose some people may disagree, thinking this would send a message to middle schoolers everywhere that you can have sex with grown women and not have to worry about consequences - but somehow, I doubt it. I think blaming the kid in this mess is the wrong thing to do.

Having said that - if this case happened in New Zealand, it's apparent that the current course of action is legal, so all we can really do is disagree with it.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Agammamon
The kicker is that if the situation was reversed, the younger woman wouldn't be expected to pay child support and the older guy would be in jail. She wouldn't pay child support because she would keep the baby and be receiving it.

I think the reason why this happens is that we seem to have the view that females are innocent anf pure and have to be seduced into sex, while males are considered inherently corrupt.

And before JK cries conspiracy, this is a view held and espoused by men long before feminism showed up. Agreed. It is really difficult to see why, in our time, sex-offenders should be treated differently depending on gender.

JK (-oops, I mean Joshua Korosi)
Having said that - if this case happened in New Zealand, it's apparent that the current course of action is legal, so all we can really do is disagree with it. Yep. :(

[American]

I don't care if he's 12. He's the real criminal-- taking advantage of a desperate, ugly girl.

[American]

Firstly, I'd demand paternity testing to make sure it's really his. They must have been going at it pretty good for that to happen.

Secondly, if she's hot then I'd say let it go. If she's... well.. not very attractive (like all of you people), then there should be a stiff (pun intended) penalty since the poor kid will have more shame than bragging rights.

Thirdly, all parties involved should be executed without a trial for being such morons (I think they really do that in some countries).

[Clancie]

I keep asking this without any answer....(?)

Since pregnancy usually takes over nine months from conception to delivery, what if this "18 year old" was 17 at the time?

Not defending it, but just curious if it would make any difference (legally or morally).

Also, there are some very unsophicated and naive 17 year olds. (I'd be curious to know a little more about the two kids involved in this case).

And I've already said...yes, whatever the circumstances, it's obviously wrong to have sex with a 12 year old...if she knew.

[American]

Originally posted by Clancy
Since pregnancy usually takes over nine months from conception to delivery, what if this "18 year old" was 17 at the time?

It's the age at the moment of getting laid. It's not always 18, some states say younger is OK.

There was a trashy talk show that had a couple on, and some cop must have been watching closely, because they said the age of their kid. If you did a little math, you could figure out that they had illegal sex, even though they were basically happily married and nobody had a problem. The guy got arrested, but I don't know what his sentence was.


In the same spirite of the law, here in massachusetts you can go to a bar at 11 pm on the night before your 21st birthday. A whole hour of legal drinking before you turn 21! I can't recall why exactly. There's some odd reason for it, but I can't remember.

[KelvinG]

From JK's post:

...radical leftist matriarchal totalitarian terrorists...

I don't know where to start with that!!!

C'mon JK, you can't leave this forum. Your tenuous grip on sanity is far to entertaining. Stick around.

[Dancing David]

Leftist majority agrees with lunatic ravings of self sylted conservative!

Too bad that JK can't read enough to see that most of us commies are agreeing with him on this one, what does it have to do with your world wide conspiracy JK, the laws were made by men.

The laws were made by men, most likely conservative men. So they, like you are just doing the work of the Feminazis.

18 yo has sex with 12 yo thats crime in Illinois, maybe not NZ. And it does seems absurd that he would pay child support. However at the age of 18 , maybe he should.

Peace
dancing David