The part where I totally didn’t notice that they didn’t get married.
But I’m still confused; why not? What are the benefits of servitude over marriage?
I’m also confused about what actually happened.
The boy took a deep breath, and opened his mouth -
Did he actually say anything? Or did McGonagall come up with the idea right before? And then didn’t mention to Harry that she was making Hermione his servant instead of his wife?
Fewer shrieks of horror from their parents? Also Hermione doesn’t need to change her name into Hermione Potter-Evans-Verres-Granger.
Did he actually say anything? Or did McGonagall come up with the idea right before?
He didn’t. It was right before. Harry knew of only marriage as a way to induct Hermione into his House. McGonagall knew of a somewhat simpler way, and one less emotionally charged than marriage.
And then didn’t mention to Harry that she was making Hermione his servant instead of his wife?
I think he realized it the moment he heard the words McGonagall was having Hermione say. Keep in mind that it’s not as if McGonaggal realized Harry was considering marriage at all.
I personally would find marriage to be vastly preferable to indefinite servitude. Servitude would definitely be emotionally charging for both of them, as humanists. And they’re already deeply in love.
Next of kin would be the mother (surely?). She now has an incentive to legally kill a wealthy heir to take their estate. That’s… something of a moral hazard or at least an unpleasant tradeoff to thrust upon someone.
If I recall correctly, in Louisiana, if a man dies and leaves children and a widow but no will, his estate goes to his children and his widow gets nothing.
If Louisiana inheritance law works that way because it is based on Code Napoleon and if the German laws of inheritance also come from Code Napoleon, then maybe the mother would not be incentivized if there were other surviving siblings.
You don’t inherit from the fetus, the fetus is the one getting the inheritance. Which makes sense, since she is related to the person who died. This might cause problems once someone makes a kid with frozen sperm of a dead person.
Think of this situation.
1) Dad dies.
2) Fetus inherits.
3) Mom gets an abortion.
4) Does Mom inherit? And if so, did we just give her a huge financial incentive to kill her kid?
Well, she certainly has a financial incentive to terminate her pregnancy in that scenario. She also has a financial incentive to murder her co-parent. (Still more so if Mom can inherit directly from Dad.) Also, given the costs of bearing and raising a child, I’d expect that most pregnant women have a financial incentive to terminate their pregnancies.
But killing Dad is murder, and you go to jail for that. Killing Baby is an outpatient procedure. with no legal sanction(and, in many places, outright subsidization). I’d say that the situations differ.
The situations differ in several ways, including their legal status.
You were discussing financial incentives, and I responded accordingly.
If your actual intention is to discuss more generally the similarities and differences between killing fetuses and adults (or babies and adults, if you prefer that language), then I’ll drop out here.
No, a generic debate about abortion is the last thing I want to partake in. It makes everybody stupid, and I suspect that I’m on the same side as most people here anyways. I just find this particular situation interesting, and that seemed like convenient shorthand.
Yes, that is what I was aiming at. If it is the rational choice to end a pregnancy, than it is good for us that not everyone in the past did so. I am aware that the OP wrote about the financial incentive, not about the most rational choice.
I’m speaking of a peculiar situation, not of a generic pregnancy. Still, I suppose that as “financial reasons to have an abortion” go, the fact that not having one obliges you to raise a kid does seem like it ought to weigh highly...
The mind is the body, and this is a rationalist fic.
Precocious children have a history of demonstrating they are not socio-emotionally prepared for some adult situations they are capable of confronting on an intellectual level. However smart or clever we are, we are still wet machines and we still grow in particular rhythms at particular times.
Before McGonagall’s stunt, I was worried the marriage would require consummation to be legally binding.
This doesn’t strike me as much of an issue. Considering what was at stake it would be an utterly trivial cost and a requirement comparatively easy to fulfill. Just another taboo tradeoff.
“Let’s see… is drastically underage sex with my girlfriend better than her death by torture?”. Death by torture really makes decision making easy at times!
The part where I totally didn’t notice that they didn’t get married.
But I’m still confused; why not? What are the benefits of servitude over marriage?
I’m also confused about what actually happened.
Did he actually say anything? Or did McGonagall come up with the idea right before? And then didn’t mention to Harry that she was making Hermione his servant instead of his wife?
Fewer shrieks of horror from their parents? Also Hermione doesn’t need to change her name into Hermione Potter-Evans-Verres-Granger.
He didn’t. It was right before. Harry knew of only marriage as a way to induct Hermione into his House. McGonagall knew of a somewhat simpler way, and one less emotionally charged than marriage.
I think he realized it the moment he heard the words McGonagall was having Hermione say. Keep in mind that it’s not as if McGonaggal realized Harry was considering marriage at all.
I personally would find marriage to be vastly preferable to indefinite servitude. Servitude would definitely be emotionally charging for both of them, as humanists. And they’re already deeply in love.
I find it quite astonishing how often I have to remind people that they’re eleven years old.
I didn’t forget that (but sometimes I do). We can have a 12 year old be a slave to an 11 year old, but we can’t have them get married?
Welcome to feudalism.
Legal system do not have to be consistant. In Germany you can inherit since the time of conception, but still legally aborted afterwards.
That is seriously weird.
Not that much. Both rules have their reasons. Real consistency is hard.
It’s not implausible, or necessarily wrong, but it is weird. What are the rules for inheriting from a fetus?
Next of kin would be the mother (surely?). She now has an incentive to legally kill a wealthy heir to take their estate. That’s… something of a moral hazard or at least an unpleasant tradeoff to thrust upon someone.
If I recall correctly, in Louisiana, if a man dies and leaves children and a widow but no will, his estate goes to his children and his widow gets nothing.
If Louisiana inheritance law works that way because it is based on Code Napoleon and if the German laws of inheritance also come from Code Napoleon, then maybe the mother would not be incentivized if there were other surviving siblings.
That’s a lot of ifs.
Yeah, that was my first thought too.
You don’t inherit from the fetus, the fetus is the one getting the inheritance. Which makes sense, since she is related to the person who died. This might cause problems once someone makes a kid with frozen sperm of a dead person.
Think of this situation. 1) Dad dies. 2) Fetus inherits. 3) Mom gets an abortion. 4) Does Mom inherit? And if so, did we just give her a huge financial incentive to kill her kid?
Well, she certainly has a financial incentive to terminate her pregnancy in that scenario. She also has a financial incentive to murder her co-parent. (Still more so if Mom can inherit directly from Dad.) Also, given the costs of bearing and raising a child, I’d expect that most pregnant women have a financial incentive to terminate their pregnancies.
But killing Dad is murder, and you go to jail for that. Killing Baby is an outpatient procedure. with no legal sanction(and, in many places, outright subsidization). I’d say that the situations differ.
The situations differ in several ways, including their legal status.
You were discussing financial incentives, and I responded accordingly.
If your actual intention is to discuss more generally the similarities and differences between killing fetuses and adults (or babies and adults, if you prefer that language), then I’ll drop out here.
No, a generic debate about abortion is the last thing I want to partake in. It makes everybody stupid, and I suspect that I’m on the same side as most people here anyways. I just find this particular situation interesting, and that seemed like convenient shorthand.
Good for us that few people are mother economicae.
I do not know what that phrase means.
I think it’s a riff on “homo economicus”—i.e., the theory that humans are rational economic actors.
Yes, that is what I was aiming at. If it is the rational choice to end a pregnancy, than it is good for us that not everyone in the past did so. I am aware that the OP wrote about the financial incentive, not about the most rational choice.
I’m speaking of a peculiar situation, not of a generic pregnancy. Still, I suppose that as “financial reasons to have an abortion” go, the fact that not having one obliges you to raise a kid does seem like it ought to weigh highly...
They’re not, mentally.
But yeah, they may not be able to get legally married. Surprising that they can get legally enslaved, though.
Feudal vassalage is a few steps up from slavery, I think.
Yes, but there’s no verb that means to put someone into it...
Vassalize.
Actually I think it’s envassal. (I really wonder how I knew that)
They are, mentally.
The mind is the body, and this is a rationalist fic.
Precocious children have a history of demonstrating they are not socio-emotionally prepared for some adult situations they are capable of confronting on an intellectual level. However smart or clever we are, we are still wet machines and we still grow in particular rhythms at particular times.
Non-violation of bigamy laws if you marry someone else.
Before McGonagall’s stunt, I was worried the marriage would require consummation to be legally binding.
“I told you, no kissing!” and then some.
This doesn’t strike me as much of an issue. Considering what was at stake it would be an utterly trivial cost and a requirement comparatively easy to fulfill. Just another taboo tradeoff.
“Let’s see… is drastically underage sex with my girlfriend better than her death by torture?”. Death by torture really makes decision making easy at times!
Well, yes. I mean, a canonical purpose of torture is to simplify decision-making.
Canonical?