11 year old gives birth in NY

[PatekPhilippe]

Its called RAPE

Why yes, it is. Which is why it's illegal and immoral when Planned Parenthood abortion clinics refuse to report underage pregnancies to the authorities.

its not rape if the father is her age

it was immoral to force her to carry the child to tern.

But they can still be charged as juveniles should the law decide to....carnal knowledge?

 

[sboyle24]

My, my. So many hypocrites sliming out the woodwork, ready to toss their "not my place to tell women what to do" out the window and start imposing arbitrary moral standards on everyone. Good to know where you people REALLY stand on the issue of "personal business".

Well, the child's age an knowledge level don't allow for them to make a decision like. Therefor it should be the parents choice. Otherwise, why do we even have a drinking age? If someone is allowed to choose whether or not they are to give birth should they be able to choose if they want to drink?

Her age and knowledge level may not, but the law DOES allow her to make the decision, independent of her parents, if she chooses. So right or wrong, she WAS part of the decision, along with her parents and her doctor. And isn't that what abortion advocates keep telling us? That it should be between the pregnant woman and her doctor? It just seems funny to me that the decision was made by the three or four (depending on whether the kid has an involved father, not always an assumption one can make these days) people actually involved and knowledgeable about the situation and who actually care about this girl and have an investment in her life, and suddenly there are all these hypocrites wanting to impose THEIR ideas of what "should" or "shouldn't" have happened, simply because the girl and her parents and doctor didn't decide the way they would have.

I never said what she should choose. I merely stated that it should be her parents choice. Even by law, a child cannot make a medical decision of their own until the age of 13 or 14. Besides, when have teenagers had any kind of rights? In high schools nowadays they are allowed to search your cars (a couple years ago at my high school they took police dogs around the school's parking lot to smell through students' cars).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, the child's age an knowledge level don't allow for them to make a decision like. Therefor it should be the parents choice. Otherwise, why do we even have a drinking age? If someone is allowed to choose whether or not they are to give birth should they be able to choose if they want to drink?

Her age and knowledge level may not, but the law DOES allow her to make the decision, independent of her parents, if she chooses. So right or wrong, she WAS part of the decision, along with her parents and her doctor. And isn't that what abortion advocates keep telling us? That it should be between the pregnant woman and her doctor? It just seems funny to me that the decision was made by the three or four (depending on whether the kid has an involved father, not always an assumption one can make these days) people actually involved and knowledgeable about the situation and who actually care about this girl and have an investment in her life, and suddenly there are all these hypocrites wanting to impose THEIR ideas of what "should" or "shouldn't" have happened, simply because the girl and her parents and doctor didn't decide the way they would have.

Why...... isn't that Freedom you are preaching there?! We can have none of that.. nope nope nope

I'm just preaching consistency, which it seems few leftists can manage to demonstrate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, the child's age an knowledge level don't allow for them to make a decision like. Therefor it should be the parents choice. Otherwise, why do we even have a drinking age? If someone is allowed to choose whether or not they are to give birth should they be able to choose if they want to drink?

Her age and knowledge level may not, but the law DOES allow her to make the decision, independent of her parents, if she chooses. So right or wrong, she WAS part of the decision, along with her parents and her doctor. And isn't that what abortion advocates keep telling us? That it should be between the pregnant woman and her doctor? It just seems funny to me that the decision was made by the three or four (depending on whether the kid has an involved father, not always an assumption one can make these days) people actually involved and knowledgeable about the situation and who actually care about this girl and have an investment in her life, and suddenly there are all these hypocrites wanting to impose THEIR ideas of what "should" or "shouldn't" have happened, simply because the girl and her parents and doctor didn't decide the way they would have.

I never said what she should choose. I merely stated that it should be her parents choice. Even by law, a child cannot make a medical decision of their own until the age of 13 or 14. Besides, when have teenagers had any kind of rights? In high schools nowadays they are allowed to search your cars (a couple years ago at my high school they took police dogs around the school's parking lot to smell through students' cars).

Who said I was talking about you?

And by law, a child cannot make her own medical decisions . . . EXCEPT in the case of abortion. I've always found that strange, that a tweenie girl can't get her ears pierced without a bunch of forms signed by her parents, but she can get an abortion in many states without them ever knowing about it. Abortions are the only thing teenagers apparently are supposed to have an always-unimpeded right to. Go figure.

 

[sboyle24]

Her age and knowledge level may not, but the law DOES allow her to make the decision, independent of her parents, if she chooses. So right or wrong, she WAS part of the decision, along with her parents and her doctor. And isn't that what abortion advocates keep telling us? That it should be between the pregnant woman and her doctor? It just seems funny to me that the decision was made by the three or four (depending on whether the kid has an involved father, not always an assumption one can make these days) people actually involved and knowledgeable about the situation and who actually care about this girl and have an investment in her life, and suddenly there are all these hypocrites wanting to impose THEIR ideas of what "should" or "shouldn't" have happened, simply because the girl and her parents and doctor didn't decide the way they would have.

I never said what she should choose. I merely stated that it should be her parents choice. Even by law, a child cannot make a medical decision of their own until the age of 13 or 14. Besides, when have teenagers had any kind of rights? In high schools nowadays they are allowed to search your cars (a couple years ago at my high school they took police dogs around the school's parking lot to smell through students' cars).

Who said I was talking about you?

And by law, a child cannot make her own medical decisions . . . EXCEPT in the case of abortion. I've always found that strange, that a tweenie girl can't get her ears pierced without a bunch of forms signed by her parents, but she can get an abortion in many states without them ever knowing about it. Abortions are the only thing teenagers apparently are supposed to have an always-unimpeded right to. Go figure.

Interesting. Despite all the moral incorrectness of it, it legally is her decision then.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I never said what she should choose. I merely stated that it should be her parents choice. Even by law, a child cannot make a medical decision of their own until the age of 13 or 14. Besides, when have teenagers had any kind of rights? In high schools nowadays they are allowed to search your cars (a couple years ago at my high school they took police dogs around the school's parking lot to smell through students' cars).

Who said I was talking about you?

And by law, a child cannot make her own medical decisions . . . EXCEPT in the case of abortion. I've always found that strange, that a tweenie girl can't get her ears pierced without a bunch of forms signed by her parents, but she can get an abortion in many states without them ever knowing about it. Abortions are the only thing teenagers apparently are supposed to have an always-unimpeded right to. Go figure.

Interesting. Despite all the moral incorrectness of it, it legally is her decision then.

Yup. Although it appears from the story that she did make it in conjunction with her parents.

 

[Anguille]

Her age and knowledge level may not, but the law DOES allow her to make the decision, independent of her parents, if she chooses. So right or wrong, she WAS part of the decision, along with her parents and her doctor. And isn't that what abortion advocates keep telling us? That it should be between the pregnant woman and her doctor? It just seems funny to me that the decision was made by the three or four (depending on whether the kid has an involved father, not always an assumption one can make these days) people actually involved and knowledgeable about the situation and who actually care about this girl and have an investment in her life, and suddenly there are all these hypocrites wanting to impose THEIR ideas of what "should" or "shouldn't" have happened, simply because the girl and her parents and doctor didn't decide the way they would have.

I never said what she should choose. I merely stated that it should be her parents choice. Even by law, a child cannot make a medical decision of their own until the age of 13 or 14. Besides, when have teenagers had any kind of rights? In high schools nowadays they are allowed to search your cars (a couple years ago at my high school they took police dogs around the school's parking lot to smell through students' cars).

Who said I was talking about you?

And by law, a child cannot make her own medical decisions . . . EXCEPT in the case of abortion. I've always found that strange, that a tweenie girl can't get her ears pierced without a bunch of forms signed by her parents, but she can get an abortion in many states without them ever knowing about it. Abortions are the only thing teenagers apparently are supposed to have an always-unimpeded right to. Go figure.

This child was not a teenager.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I never said what she should choose. I merely stated that it should be her parents choice. Even by law, a child cannot make a medical decision of their own until the age of 13 or 14. Besides, when have teenagers had any kind of rights? In high schools nowadays they are allowed to search your cars (a couple years ago at my high school they took police dogs around the school's parking lot to smell through students' cars).

Who said I was talking about you?

And by law, a child cannot make her own medical decisions . . . EXCEPT in the case of abortion. I've always found that strange, that a tweenie girl can't get her ears pierced without a bunch of forms signed by her parents, but she can get an abortion in many states without them ever knowing about it. Abortions are the only thing teenagers apparently are supposed to have an always-unimpeded right to. Go figure.

This child was not a teenager.

Doesn't matter in the slightest to the law. Why do you think people are so hot for parental notification laws?

 

[Liability]

Just to offer one odd clarification for this thread.

If the biolgical "father" of the 11 year old mother's child is himself 16 (more precisely, if he is not more than 5 years older than the mother) then this might not actually be a case of rape.

If the guy who impregnated her was, however, nore than five years older, then there may well be a case of (at least) statutory rape here.

Where was Roman Polanski when the kid got impregnated?

For that matter, where was Contumacious? He's a long-time supporter of the notion that kids should be free to have sex with whomever they wish.

 

[chanel]

If one cannot consent to sexual relations before age 17, are children under age 17 guilty of rape or other sex offenses? The answer is yes and no.

New York's law provides a number of exceptions to the age of consent rule. While a child under age 17 cannot legally consent to have sex, the older partner of that child may or may not face criminal charges, depending on the situation and the law's exceptions.

No one may have sexual intercourse with a child under 11 years old. Hence, an 11-year-old who has sex with a 10-year-old would be guilty of rape in the first degree. That is an unlikely, but possible, scenario.

Proof of both a less-than-five-year gap between the ages of the actors, and the victim's age being at least 14, would act as an affirmative defense in an otherwise consensual situation. In other words, if it was a "no, don't touch me" situation, that would be sexual abuse. However, if it was a "please touch me" situation, and one actor in the situation is charged with sexual abuse but he or she proves both the age difference and that the other actor is 14, then there is an affirmative defense.

Understanding New York Statutory Rape Laws: The Age of Consent - Avvo.com

Tricky. But chances are she was ten when she got pregnant, so it wouldn't matter how old the father was.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Its called RAPE

Why yes, it is. Which is why it's illegal and immoral when Planned Parenthood abortion clinics refuse to report underage pregnancies to the authorities.

its not rape if the father is her age

it was immoral to force her to carry the child to tern.

Maybe it was her choice to carry it to full term.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The pregnancy should have been terminated for the health of the child/mother.

My, my. So many hypocrites sliming out the woodwork, ready to toss their "not my place to tell women what to do" out the window and start imposing arbitrary moral standards on everyone. Good to know where you people REALLY stand on the issue of "personal business".

Well, the child's age an knowledge level don't allow for them to make a decision like. Therefor it should be the parents choice. Otherwise, why do we even have a drinking age? If someone is allowed to choose whether or not they are to give birth should they be able to choose if they want to drink?

Then why doesn't planned parenthood contact the parents when an underage girls shows up for an abortion? Seems like your wanting it both ways.

 

[jillian]

Doesn't matter in the slightest to the law. Why do you think people are so hot for parental notification laws?

So that kids won't get abortions...

That's why.

D'uh.

 

[jillian]

It always amazes me how quick you supposedly "tolerant" leftists are to impose your own personal opinions on everyone else as a universal moral standard. Whatever happened to "my body, my choice"? Does that only count when the "choice" is what YOU would do?

How is it "intolerant" to think this child shouldn't have been forced to have a child?

How sick is it that you think she should have been and that her life should have been placed in danger?

And, btw... it isn't YOUR body. It's hers. And she is a child who shouldn't be having children and wasn't capable of making those decisions at 10 when she got pregnant.

 

[Liability]

If one cannot consent to sexual relations before age 17, are children under age 17 guilty of rape or other sex offenses? The answer is yes and no.

New York's law provides a number of exceptions to the age of consent rule. While a child under age 17 cannot legally consent to have sex, the older partner of that child may or may not face criminal charges, depending on the situation and the law's exceptions.

No one may have sexual intercourse with a child under 11 years old. Hence, an 11-year-old who has sex with a 10-year-old would be guilty of rape in the first degree. That is an unlikely, but possible, scenario.

Proof of both a less-than-five-year gap between the ages of the actors, and the victim's age being at least 14, would act as an affirmative defense in an otherwise consensual situation. In other words, if it was a "no, don't touch me" situation, that would be sexual abuse. However, if it was a "please touch me" situation, and one actor in the situation is charged with sexual abuse but he or she proves both the age difference and that the other actor is 14, then there is an affirmative defense.

Understanding New York Statutory Rape Laws: The Age of Consent - Avvo.com

Tricky. But chances are she was ten when she got pregnant, so it wouldn't matter how old the father was.

As with many things, the disclaimer that "it's tricky" understates the problem.

I happen to disagree with the author of that piece, for two separate reasons.

Among other things, if an 11 or 12, or 13 or 14 year old male had sexual relations with a 10 year old female, it is quite probable that even IF he could be said to have committed some "crime," he would likely NOT end up with a criminal conviction on his record. Why not? For another reason: it is likely that any such criminal conviction would get erased by the "youthful offender" provisions of the State's law.

Then, there's the defense of "infancy." The Penal Law in NY EXCEPTS from criminal responsibility certain "youths," depending on the crimes being considered:
"§ 30.00 Infancy.
1. Except as provided in subdivision two of this section, a person
less than sixteen years old is not criminally responsible for conduct.
2. A person * * * fourteen or fifteen years
of age is criminally responsible for acts constituting the crimes
defined in section 135.25 (kidnapping in the first degree); 150.20
(arson in the first degree); subdivisions one and two of section 120.10
(assault in the first degree); 125.20 (manslaughter in the first
degree); subdivisions one and two of section 130.35 (rape in the first
degree);


The Rape Section of the Penal Law in NY, in relevant part, reads:

§ 130.35 Rape in the first degree.
A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages
in sexual intercourse with another person:
1. By forcible compulsion; or
2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless;
or
3. Who is less than eleven years old; or
4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years
old or more.
Rape in the first degree is a class B felony.

Now that means, as I interpret it, that a person less that 16 is not responsible under subdivision 3, but if he is 14 or 15, he IS responsible under subdivisions 1 and 2.

The subdivision making it Rape in the First Degree to have sexual intercourse with a child less than 11 years old (subdivision 3) does NOT get a separate exception as do subdivisions 1 and 2. Accordingly, the infancy defense (meaning the actor is 16 years old or younger) DOES apply (imho) to that provision of the rape law.

 

[Anguille]

Doesn't matter in the slightest to the law. Why do you think people are so hot for parental notification laws?

What people? It seems most aren't. Especially many who recall being a teen.

The only reason for a law like that is so that parents can force their own beliefs, either pro or against, abortion. You forced birthers forget that there are just as many parents, maybe more, who do NOT want to see their kids become teenage mothers and fathers as there are who do.

 

[Anguille]

Just to offer one odd clarification for this thread.

If the biolgical "father" of the 11 year old mother's child is himself 16 (more precisely, if he is not more than 5 years older than the mother) then this might not actually be a case of rape.

If the guy who impregnated her was, however, nore than five years older, then there may well be a case of (at least) statutory rape here.

Where was Roman Polanski when the kid got impregnated?

For that matter, where was Contumacious? He's a long-time supporter of the notion that kids should be free to have sex with whomever they wish.

You're assuming the father is older. He could be younger. I have a male friend who was raped, condom pulled off at last minute and hopped on top of, when he was 14 by a 17 year old girl. She refused to get an abortion or put the baby up for adoption even when his parent's offered to pay for everything, even to adopt the child themselves. They ended up paying the child support as he was a minor.

 

[chanel]

Interesting liability. Several factors would have to be considered.

But I've come to learn a bit about the juvenile justice system here in NJ, and judges have A LOT of discretion in sentencing. Guidelines seem to be just that. I just hope the prick gets some punishment - regardless of age. 10 year olds cannot consent. "Playing doctor" does not involved penetration.

 

[Liability]

Just to offer one odd clarification for this thread.

If the biolgical "father" of the 11 year old mother's child is himself 16 (more precisely, if he is not more than 5 years older than the mother) then this might not actually be a case of rape.

If the guy who impregnated her was, however, nore than five years older, then there may well be a case of (at least) statutory rape here.

Where was Roman Polanski when the kid got impregnated?

For that matter, where was Contumacious? He's a long-time supporter of the notion that kids should be free to have sex with whomever they wish.

You're assuming the father is older.

Nope. Since I don't know the responsible male's age, however, I was addressing the prospect that it COULD be criminal IF the guy was older, but not necessarily even then.

For reasons I explained later, however, I do not believe a person younger than the impregnated child could possibly be guilty of a criminal act.

[He could be younger.

It is possible to reach puberty by age 10 or even younger, but there is a significantly reduced chance once that rather young age is reached.

[I have a male friend who was raped, condom pulled off at last minute and hopped on top of, when he was 14 by a 17 year old girl. She refused to get an abortion or put the baby up for adoption even when his parent's offered to pay for everything, even to adopt the child themselves. They ended up paying the child support as he was a minor.

That's a fucked up scenario. Sounds like the young "mother" was very much in need of some intervention.

 

[Anguille]

Just to offer one odd clarification for this thread.

If the biolgical "father" of the 11 year old mother's child is himself 16 (more precisely, if he is not more than 5 years older than the mother) then this might not actually be a case of rape.

If the guy who impregnated her was, however, nore than five years older, then there may well be a case of (at least) statutory rape here.

Where was Roman Polanski when the kid got impregnated?

For that matter, where was Contumacious? He's a long-time supporter of the notion that kids should be free to have sex with whomever they wish.

You're assuming the father is older.

Nope. Since I don't know the responsible male's age, however, I was addressing the prospect that it COULD be criminal IF the guy was older, but not necessarily even then.

For reasons I explained later, however, I do not believe a person younger than the impregnated child could possibly be guilty of a criminal act.

[He could be younger.

It is possible to reach puberty by age 10 or even younger, but there is a significantly reduced chance once that rather young age is reached.

[I have a male friend who was raped, condom pulled off at last minute and hopped on top of, when he was 14 by a 17 year old girl. She refused to get an abortion or put the baby up for adoption even when his parent's offered to pay for everything, even to adopt the child themselves. They ended up paying the child support as he was a minor.

That's a fucked up scenario. Sounds like the young "mother" was very much in need of some intervention.

The young mother was backed up 100% by hr own mom. Apparently that is how mom had financed her own motherhood. It was becoming a family tradition.

And these were not poor or uneducated people either. My friend made a demand for shared custody once he got older and won. His daughter was taught by her mother to try to make him feel guilty and to try to get more money from him. She really didn't want to spend more time with her dad. Fortunately she was young enough that my friend's wife was able to win her over and eventually dad and daughter came to love each other. The daughter has turned out to be a better person than her mom but still a bit messed up knowing she was created to be used for blackmail.
At one point, her mother had threatened to accuse my friend of rape if all her demands were not met. I feel bad for this girl. Hopefully spending time with her father's family has shown her a more normal way of interacting with people.