Have you even thought about how ridiculous the question “what would people do without this law?” is?
What have people ever done? How often has this law been used like this?
Answer those questions, and I think you will see that your own question makes no sense.
What if the kid refuses to have safe sex, or is so unreliable that the parents do not have faith that the kid will have safe sex?
What if they can’t afford boarding school? Are there any State-run or budget boarding schools that you know of?
Oh, so you mean that 100% of teens having sex don’t get pregnant and don’t get STDs?
So, what happens if their child won’t give the baby up for adoption, and won’t get an abortion?
The parents are obliged to look after their teenager, right? And the teenager now has this baby.
Where is this baby going to go? Who is going to look after this baby? Yeah, I know, the teenager is supposed to look after the baby, but “how likely” is this to happen? How likely is it that the teenager will be 100% responsible for that kid, with no help from the parents and no help from the taxpayers? As far as I know, no one can FORCE that teenager give up the child. And as far as I know, the parent can’t FORCE their teenager out of the house. Unless you think that they should force a teenaged parent out of the house? Would this be an acceptable way for a parent to not have to worry about being responsible for the baby that their teenager had?
You think it’s “unlikely” that the teenager will get pregnant and “unlikely” that the teenager will get an STD? How does this reassure a parent who cannot afford to send their kid away to boarding school? How does this comfort a parent who has a foolish child who is irresponsible with birth control and safe sex? How comforting is it to a parent to know that there’s only a “little” chance that their kid could end up with AIDs, or some other STD? How can a parent FORCE their kid to have “safe” sex?
Excellent questions, indeed.
Who are you talking about, exactly? Certainly not anyone on this thread thinks that prison is a good idea.
If you think anyone on this thread thinks this, please copy and paste the quotes where they say so.
yosemitebabe - the parents are not responsible for a baby. The mother would get government aid, and then child support when the father could pay. Though again, this is very uncommon, especially with girls who are educated. The majority of teen pregnancies have adult fathers, not teenage fathers.
And no, jail should not be an option for a teen who is not truant, does not steal, is not violent, does not do drugs, but has consensual sex with someone their own age.
Could you answer this:
Have you even thought about how ridiculous the question “what would people do without this law?” is?
What have people ever done? How often has this law been used like this?
Answer those questions, and I think you will see that your own question makes no sense.
Ah, sorry, well I thought you were the one who had asked that.
There’s an excellent one in the pit right now. I’d forgotten about it. Mercks Manual has some good chapters on human sexuality. This question WAS one regarding “why don’t you want YOUR teens to have sex” though. And was one which those of us who are parents haven’t fully had a chance to answer since some members keep finding some rather madhatter type strawmen.
At any rate, the cites I cite (sheesh :D) aren’t going to “prove teenagers are unable to understand the consequences of sex”. What they do is outline the various stages of development psychologically (which has always been one of MY biggest concerns as the parent of a girl), emotionally, physically, (another big concern, as girls bodies that young are NOT quite ready for the rigors of pregnancy. And THAT little factoid you can find every place from your 10th grade health book to “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex…”.
Again, remember that the question was “why don’t you want your teens to have sex” to which was answered reasons ranging from the obvious pregnancy issues to them not being emotionally ready for it.
Do we have carved in stone proof of that? No, we have “school of hard knocks, I’ve BEEN the hell there” proof of that. And again, all the parents who’ve posted had made DAMN sure that we made the disclaimer of “not all teens will fall under this category”.
We, as parents SEE and believe that most will, based on what we observe from teens, and from what we ourselves went through.
I was referring to the original post PRIOR to the ones you quote here, meaning the person who had originally attributed my reasons for not wanting my teens to have sex with a “yeah but, why should we go to jail for it”. But alright, I can see where that got confusing. But okay, I’ll answer your question.
In my opinion, NOT with facts since I’m NOT a lawyer.
People who are adults have reached the age of consent. To say "why should it be legal, (since your argument is they too can have children and not take care of them), is that they, until they “trip up” are operating within the law. Once they break that law, by neglecting their child, they are subject to other laws.
One reason (again, IMHO, remember I am NOT a lawyer and I didn’t make these laws), that there is a difference is that with a 14 year old who has a baby, is that she isn’t legallly responsible, mommy and daddy are.
The incentive for attempting to prevent possible pregnancy is more crucial, again, based on the statistics that likely an adult will either be able to support the child, or can be subject to laws forcing compliance. With the child, he/she is still a minor and mom and dad are responsible.
[/quote]
In fact, it was my statement you were responding to (as you can see from your quote box at the top of page 3), not Ryle Dup’s, and I didn’t even use the word “allowing”. It doesn’t really bother me–we all make mistakes–but before you complain about the speck in my eye, you ought to remove the plank from your own.
[/quote]
Fine.
No, people aren’t giving the adult the 'benefit of the doubt". They are looking at her life, and her ability to be responsible, if she’s a drug using loser, who can’t make ends meet, and who is practicallly on the street, she/he is going to be looked at with the same doubt as to whether he/she could handle a child.
Asked and answered above.
It is the fact that if she makes the wrong choice, then mom and dad, or we taxpayers, have to foot the bill, that makes it much much different. She can’t be forced to make the right decision, and a child that age can’t always make appropriate decisions, just as the aforementioned toddler and the fenced yard. It may SEEM as if they’re making a “good decision” but without any life experience under their belt, and from the idealized cloud that is having had mom and dad foot the bill all those years, she doesn’t have the best experience or maturity with wich to make that choice.
The fear that she will make the wrong choice is part of what laws (however imperfect) like this one come into being.
Yes, that’s true. But, for one, what a heartbreaking thing for a child to go through.
And two, there are so many more issues that concern parents, and cause them to put the kibbitz on sex (as best they can) than those we’ve been able to cover.
So far some of the teens here are acting as if every 14 year old not only has the right, but the obligation to “get out there and DO it” already.
That’s sad. What happened to childhood? Kids are in too damn big of a hurry to grow up. Then they get here, and like the rest of we adults they’re saying “what the hell was I in such a rush for”???
See, I told you that locking lips with this law would leave you sick. I hear the first symtom is hallucinations.
Ah. So the taxpayers get to pay for it!
I am specifically asking for a solution that does NOT require government or parental aid. I am specifically asked for a solution that does not require the parents of the teenager to have to worry about having a new baby (their grandchild) in their house. Because sure as shootin’, if that baby is in their house, along with their teenaged child, they (the parents) WILL BE LOOKING AFTER THAT BABY and also supporting it (at least in part) too. No, I don’t have any cites for that, but come on. How many 14-year-old girls do you know who don’t live with their parents and are able to support their child? How many fathers of babies born to teenagers are 100% responsible for the care of that baby? (And oh yeah, before the rest of you trot out the claim that adults can be irresponsible too and require government aid, I’ll just point to the percentages here: I’d make a wild guess and say that close to 100% of 14-year-olds cannot live on their own and support themselves. Also, close to 100% of 14-year-olds have parents who are legally responsible for them. In contrast, what percentage of 30-year-olds are unable to have a job, and have parents who are legally responsible for them? What percentage, please?)
So—got any solutions that don’t cost the parents or the taxpayers any money and/or resources?
And when would that be? And in the meantime, the taxpayers fork over all the money? And as far as I know, he only has to pay a portion—not the whole thing. Who is paying for the other portion of child support?
But it still happens, right? Why should the parents feel comforted by this, when they still know that there’s a chance? Even among the educated kids? (I have had some friends who got knocked up in high school—and we went to a good school.)
And do they pay 100% of the child support? I don’t think so. So who would pay for the rest of the child support? My guess would be—the taxpayers or the parents. Unless you think the 14-year-old mother is supporting herself and the kid?
And I’d like you to find a quote from any of us here claiming that it is.
I think people are aware that the law is being used in a somewhat Springeresque way this time. The thing that many of us are saying is that there should be some mechanism in place to prevent willful children from having sex, especially when they (some of these children) will invariably NOT be responsible. (As your mention of government aid pretty much confirms.)
Hey, and while we’re at it, you didn’t answer my questions: What about the parents who can’t afford boarding school? What about the kids who refuse to practice safe sex? What should parents do? Kick them out? Do you advocate parents kicking out willful kids who are determined to have sex anyway and risk pregnancy?
Parents can ground their kids, they can take away priviledges, they have a lot of options. If their kid is not truant, not doing drugs, not stealing, not violent, and not affected by anything the parent does, and is singlemindedly trying to have a baby with another teenager and raise it, and the parent can’t or won’t send them off to school or a relative, and the kid is sneaky enough to get around anything the parent tries to stop them with, then yes, they could end up getting government aid for a baby.
But that is an extremely rare scenario, and the world doesn’t end if it happens. It is certainly not worth criminalizing all consensual teen sex for these rare cases. You know what the best solution is? Education, and safe sex. Why is teen pregnancy at an all time low? Is it because we convict kids of sex crimes? Or is it because we educate them, and they realize they don’t want to have kids? Many, or most, choose abstinence, and those who do have sex use protection. This is a FAR better solution than criminalization. It is better in every way, including results.
If you have a better solution than education and openness, feel free to share. Hint: Jail is not better.
I think this thread needs a happy ending:
“You’re right, this law is wrong. Teenagers should not be convicted of sex crimes for having consensual sex with someone their own age.”
“See! Now you’ve got it. And that’s not to say parents can’t do anything. Just not sex crimes convictions, which have been used so rarely in this way that I always thought it was humorous how you acted as though parents had always needed such an option.”
“I know, I know. I was delerious. But I was overestimating the problem, since most teen births result from adult fathers, and…”
“Give the teen resonsiblity, and they’ll come through! Send them to jail and they’ll act out!”
“You interupted me.”
“Sorry. You were saying?”
“I was saying that I can’t believe I favored criminalization over education and openness? What was I thinking?”
“Criminalization is a seductive lover. You simply were not mature enough to resist his charms.”
“You’re right. Now that I have loosed his shackles I feel a great weight has been lifted from me!”
“We cool?”
“We cool.”
And I’m sure most parents would give all these methods a really good shot before pulling out the “big guns.” I’d certainly expect them to. But as we know, these tactics don’t always work, no matter how much the parents try to get them to work. Especially with working parents, who cannot be home 24 hours a day to monitor their kids.
You still won’t address how these parents are going to afford boarding school, will you? And how will shipping the kid off with a relative (if they have a relative willing to take on a hellion of a child) prevent the kid from finding a new sex partner?
And this is your solution? Have the taxpayers pay for it? And this baby will STILL be in the home of the teenager’s parents, right? Who is going to provide day care? Will the teenager quit school to look after the baby?
I’ll ask again—how about the parents kick out the kid? Would you consider this a viable option for the parents, if they don’t want to deal with a willful child who refuses to be responsible? Or are the parents expected to deal with hellion children who are determined to behave irresponsibly? Would you consider a parent who kicked out a child who was persistently and willfully trying to sneak out and have irresponsible sex to be a “bad” parent? Yes or no? Would you feel sorry for the child because their behavior got them kicked out? Yes or no?
I don’t think it’s extremely rare, because if it were, I wouldn’t know several people who are (or have) taken care of their teenagers’ kids, now would I? I’m not saying it’s “common,” but I doubt it’s all that extremely rare.
But it’s not at 100% effective yet, is it? So for those hard cases who are determined to be irresponsible, what do you expect the parents to do? (Considering that boarding school or carting them off to a relative or keeping them locked up in the house are not always feasable.)
Is it at 0% yet? If not, parents still have reason for concern.
Once more with feeling:
PLEASE COPY AND PASTE ANY STATEMENTS HERE ADVOCATING JAIL. THANK YOU.
I think you should let some of the weight off your shoulders. You are making this a lot harder than it needs to be. There is no perfect solution. Education and safe sex are doing their job. Most teen births are because of adult fathers. Now is not the time to fly off the handle and criminalize consensual sex between teens. Parenting is a tough job, but sex crime convictions for consensual sex between teens are not a good parenting tool.
Your sole objection now is the taxpayers. Should everything that costs the taxpayers money be illegal? There are a lot of things that cost a lot more than teen pregnancies with teen fathers (a small minority of all teen pregnancies, and shrinking).
Since this thread has now turned into me being asked to come up with a (probably nonexistant) perfect solution, and as I have already stated that education, safe sex, and quality parents are the best solution (though not perfect), and as the thread still contains absolutely no reason whatsoever for this law to exist, I’ll have to bow out and be content with my fantasy ending to this thread.
Have you missed the 10 or so posts where we explain how, since the kids in question are often as big, or BIGGER than their parents that this isn’t always possible or effective?
[/quote]
If their kid is not truant, not doing drugs, not stealing, not violent, and not affected by anything the parent does, and is singlemindedly trying to have a baby with another teenager and raise it, and the parent can’t or won’t send them off to school or a relative, and the kid is sneaky enough to get around anything the parent tries to stop them with, then yes, they could end up getting government aid for a baby.
[/quote]
T
But that is an extremely rare scenario, and the world doesn’t end if it happens.
[/quote]
Extemely rare? Uh huh. I see. Cite please? Or is it your contention that because the father is frequently the one who has reached or exceeded the AOC, that he’s usually a middle aged guy with plenty of money, or if he’s not, then “oh well” they’ll just (sing song) Go on Welfare".
[quote]
It is certainly not worth criminalizing all consensual teen sex for these rare cases. You know what the best solution is? Education, and safe sex. Why is teen pregnancy at an all time low? Is it because we convict kids of sex crimes? Or is it because we educate them, and they realize they don’t want to have kids? Many, or most, choose abstinence, and those who do have sex use protection. This is a FAR better solution than criminalization. It is better in every way, including results.
They aren’t criminalizing all consensual teen sex. Just that of those who are under the age of consent. Same as if a 14 year old took off in a car without a license.
A better solution? to what? preventing pregnancy? Or to enforcing the law? You seem to continue to mix issues.
Well, that’s a good thing, and we’ll vote for what we feel is the best solution. Oh and by the way?? Best solution to keeping recalcitrant kids inline for mqny of the other reasons parents want to keep their children safe. NOT merely “keeping them from getting preggers”. That’s a really, really moot point.
And guess what? I don’t know about Yosemitebabe, but I make a decent amount of money per year, not rich, but enough to pay all my bills and still fly out a few times a year, etc.
Ole Uncle Sam takes a pretty chunk out of my paycheck. And THAT money goes to fund bills and future laws like this one that has your adolescent panties in such a frantic bunch.
When you can vote? And become a parent? I’ll bet my antique “swing” purse that you’ll be singing a diferent tune altogether.
I’d also like to see where ANY of the adults in this thread advocated jail? I challenge you to find ONE thread stating that.
Being charged, and/or convicted of the crime of "unlawful sexual consent’ between two kids, is not “Jail”. This case, and others will likely end up with the kids (as the article STATED), going into a juvenile treatment program.
Hardly jail.
And that’s IF they do any juviel time, or programs at all. Which again, I stated and you ignored. I’m betting on probation and community service.
And as Yosemitebabe (sorry about the earlier butchering of your name) said if a set of parents has already TRIED all of the other options (as has been mentioned and IGNORED by you NUMEROUS times), and that parent is left to deal with a child determined to go out and do what he/she wanted with regards to sex, then what else is the parent to do?
There needs to be SOME assistance by the law to provide for cases like this.
Also, you keep stating (paraphrased) “two kids of equal age” how does the parent know WHAT age the person their child is boffing is? They don’t.
But the thing is, when a kid is out of control with drugs, we have a law to help parents keep them in line.
When a kid is out of control and is behaving violently, we have a law to help parents keep them in line.
When a kid is out of control and is driving while they are underage, or they are smoking while underage, or skipping school, or drinking, the law has mechanisms to help keep them in line. The parents have some sort of “back up” to help keep the most willful of kids in line. It doesn’t always work, but there is sort of an official mechanism there. No, there’s not a mechanism for making a kid eat their lima beans, but for most of the big “concerns” parents have, there’s a mechanism.
And some parents want a mechanism in place to help them with willful kids who seem destined to “drown them (the parents) in grandchildren.”
But you don’t want that. You want them to pay for boarding school, or ship them off to a relative, or just suck it up and support their baby and you also expect the taxpayers to pay for it.
It’s not just the taxpayers paying for it part that irritates me, it’s the disruption to the parents’ lives. They may not want to have a new baby in the house. But they don’t know what to do. Their teenager won’t give up the baby. They can’t make her. They don’t want to kick her out. So here they are, with a baby in the house. Just having taxpayers’ money to help them out (not that that doesn’t irritate me too) isn’t all there is to it. It’s the parents’ energy and time and resources that are being sucked up by a willful child that WOULD NOT respond to more “typical” forms of discipline. And you don’t want any legal “mechanism” (and NO, it doesn’t involve jail) in play either. You just want the parents to suck it up.
If the kid were a drug addict, the parents have a “mechanism.” Violence, smoking, drinking—all these things have “mechanisms.” But not foolish sex that may bring a new mouth to feed into the home?
I don’t seriously think that the parents would or should kick out kids who won’t be responsible with sex, who willfully refuse to abide by their parents’ wishes regarding sex, but since you don’t give them anything else to resort to, why shouldn’t they just kick the damned kid out? Why should they risk being “drowned in grandchildren,” anyway?
Do you think that the parents would be morally wrong in kicking such a kid out? If not, why not?
Argh, yosimete Speaking of “willful children”.
I think you and me?? We’re wasting our collective (albeit WELL trained and knowledgeable re: school of hard knocks") breaths here.
Your post here is EXCELLENT though, just wanted to pat your back on it.
I’ll just point out again that in this thread I have been arguing specifically against the law that was the basis for this thread:
A law which criminalizes all sexual contact, or planned sexual contact, between consenting teenagers of the same age, regardless of how “unruly” the teenager is.
I think it has been pretty clear that what I have been doing, other than allowing CanvasShoes to indulge her childish penchant for elementary school name-calling, is arguing against this law.
Now, some people in this thread may well have thought of better laws. Laws that don’t criminalize all consensual sex for teenagers, but merely provide a legal mechanism for parents of unruly, uncontrollable children who are singlemindedly trying to have babies.
Please be aware, I never argued against such laws. I question the motives of anyone who has argued with me this whole time, while agreeing with my rejection of the law which was the basis for this thread. That is all I have been arguing against.
No, actually, to be completely accurate, I think a lot of us are talking about “willful children who are singlemindedly trying to have sex, which, if done frequently enough and done without the utmost care (which would be difficult to insure) could lead to babies.”
The intent to have babies doesn’t actually have to be there. I truly do not think that all teenagers are thinking that they want babies. They just want sex, and by hook or by crook, no matter how nervous and scared their parents are, no matter how many times the parents warn them about pregnancy (not to mention STDs), the kids just won’t stop trying to have sex. (And therefore, risk “drowning the parents in grandchildren.”)
For such kids, yes, I think many of us would like a “mechanism” to stop them. And I have not seen you agreeing with that. I’ve seen you suggest “boarding school” for such children. And I don’t think a lot of us think that’s going to hack it.
I think a lot of us want a “mechanism” in play for willful kids who are determined to have sex, so that the parents can try to stop them before the babies come.
Okey Dokey as you wish…
Happy now?
What sort of state imposed sanctions are you imagining? If you aren’t proposing any, then I suppose you might as well concede the state has no business messing around with their sex lives. If you just came to proselytize about the dangers of teenage sex, then I think you’re a little OT.