To be fair, if they don’t want to have the baby they won’t have it. Parents cannot stop their kids from having an abortion.
Have you been advocating a law that would address only the “unruly” teenagers who seem determined to have sex? Didn’t I ask you about solutions to such children? Didn’t you suggest (snicker) boarding school?
I didn’t see you supporting any “mechanism” for such children, did I? So even those who support a policy for just the “unruly” children are not going to be supported by you, are they? You think boarding school is going to do it.
errata: As to whether that quote actually means “Jail” (when Canvas Shoes repeatedly said that’s not what she wanted many times) is up for Canvas Shoes to explain. I don’t think it does. If that’s the best you can do…well…
I’ll also ask you, if the state has “no business messing around in their (the teenagers’) sex lives,” then what should these teenagers’ parents do when their kids are willfully having sex? Just sit on their hands while the kids breed? Send 'em to boarding school? What is your solution?
Oh, bullshit.
We’ve covered this before. The teen father may not want kids, but the teen mom does. Both teens may not even be thinking about babies, until oops! she’s pregnant, and then some latent anti-abortion sentiments kick in, and whatever she may have thought or said previously about abortion is out the window. The parents can’t make her have an abortion, the teen father can’t make her—that’s the problem. She’s a loose cannon. No telling what she’ll do. No guarantees.
I’m just pointing that out, not arguing against whatever other laws you may be imagining. The only law I am arguing against it the one that the thread is based upon.
I’m sorry but anyone who thinks their kids are better off in prison than having sex is sadly misguided.
Do you really think forcing your kid to hang out with thieves, drug addicts, and such will teach them some sort of moral lesson? By the time they get out you’ll be happy if all they do is have consensual sex with other teens.
We’ve already gone over this, my dear.
Find someone who thinks these kids need to be in jail and argue with them.
Then why did you suggest boarding school for unruly kids?
And, now that we’ve brought it up, would you advocate a mechanism that dealt with uruly kids who would not stop having sex, even though their parents were concerned for them and didn’t want to be “drowned in grandchildren”? Yes or no?
I would consider a law in which parents could give teenagers below a certain age prior warning that they not have sex lest they face a legal mechanism to prevent them from having sex.
I would not support any law, like that which I have been arguing against this whole time, which starts off by criminalizing all consensual sex between teenagers no matter what their parents think or have said to them.
Now we’re gettin’ somewhere.
What age would you suggest that this be?
Choosing an age is always subjective. I would probably say 16.
Keep in mind, the “legal mechanism” would not be a sex crime conviction, or juvenile hall, or jail.
OK, not that I’ve had time to mull it over too much, but I think we are starting to have a meeting of the minds. (Well, I can’t speak for everyone else.)
I also am thinking that after age 16 (when such a “mechanism” will no longer be enforced) that all children under their parents’ care will know that they are on their own when it comes to unexpected babies. They will have to get a job, and they will have to not rely on mommy and daddy for whatever situations they get into.
I think under 16 is too young to expect the kid to be independent, but after 16 (while still rather young), yeah, they have a shot at being more independent. And if they want to have “safe, consentual sex”? Fine. But they can’t assume that just because mommy and daddy are still legally responsible for them, that mommy and daddy will bail them out.
It’s got to be either one or the other. I don’t think it’s right for the parents to be legally responsible for the child and yet the child can screw like a mink and (possibly) bring a grandchild (or two) into the home, while the parents stand by and are not allowed to do anything. So perhaps the threat of having to hold down a job (serious hours here, not just a few hours a day) would be a disincentive?
Hmmm…I’m still a little ambivalent about it, and I’m not entirely sure if the above scenario is a do-able thing, but I think it’s a start, anyway.
Let’s go back to what you said on page 3…
I will be happy with a cite that proves 14 year olds are not “ready for sex”. Not childbirth, not pregnancy… sex. Being unprepared for all the potential consequences of an act, no matter how unlikely, is not the same as being unprepared for the act itself.
This isn’t really an answer at all.
I realize that the age of consent makes it illegal for teenagers to have sex, in some states. That’s the basis of the OP. And of course the literal reason that it’s legal for unemployed adult drug addicts to have sex is that they’re “operating within the law”; that’s what legal means.
Adults are legally allowed to have sex, regardless of whether they’re employed, addicted to drugs, educated, or in any other way capable of raising children. That is, adults who are obviously incapable of raising a child are still legally allowed to have sex, and until they actually bear a child and neglect it, they aren’t breaking the law. Yet under AOC laws like those in Wisconsin and California, teenagers are breaking the law the moment they have sex. That double standard is clear evidence of prejudice.
So make her responsible, instead of her parents.
It’s no more heartbreaking than for anyone else… just another reason to use birth control properly.
Perhaps it wouldn’t be such a problem if they weren’t treated as children for so long. You can’t teach your kid to swim by “protecting” him from the water, making sure he stays far away from it, then suddenly tossing him in at age 18 and saying “Now you’re ready to swim.”
Since when do parents need the law to back them up on everything? There’s no law against not doing your homework, or watching too much TV, or watching R-rated movies either. Some kids watch horror movies instead of doing their homework, but somehow their parents deal with it without threatening to call the cops.
If that’s the problem, then why not fix it?
This is essentially what I’ve advocated in the past (though I’d extend it to all ages, not just 16+). It’s good to see you coming around to the idea that teenagers can actually hold down a job. 
How is that any different in practice? Parents who don’t mind their kids having sex are unlikely to call the cops with the current laws, and parents like the one in the OP have probably already let their kids know that they don’t approve of sex.
What would the “legal mechanism” be, if not jail time? Taking away unrelated legal privileges (e.g. driver’s license) is a sentence that’s already abused (e.g. by underage drinking laws), and would have nearly as much impact on the kid’s ability to find a job as a conviction would.
Not everything, (like for eating their lima beans, which I cited previously), but when the parents’ best efforst have failed, when other methods of keeping the kids in line have failed, when the kids are out of CONTROL and are willfully behaving in a foolhardy manner, yes, the law has a mechanism to help back the parents up. When the kids take drugs, drink, drive, smoke, are violent—the law has “mechanisms” to stop these kids from doing these activities. All, with the exception of drugs and violence, are legal for adults to do. And so I (and others) are wondering why it’s so terrible to have a mechanism to hold willful children in check when it comes to sex. This mechanism would be used, I hope, only after all other reasonable efforts have been attempted by the parent.
How? HOW do you “fix” it so that teenaged girls will always have abortions when an unexpected pregnancy occurs? How do you manage this? Have you figured out something that the rest of us haven’t?
Oh, but you twisted it around so that the kids would have their cake and eat it too. They would not really be “responsible,” they’d just take a crack at it, and if it didn’t work out, they could be bailed out and mommy and daddy (or the taxpayers).
Oh, and yeah—what was this about working full time and going to school too? You didn’t seem too keen on that idea. You didn’t want this work that you think they are cabable of to interfere with school. So when it came right down to it, they really wouldn’t be working much, would they? So, you really didn’t want them to be held to adult standards. You just wanted them to enjoy the “rights” of adults. But holding them to the standards as well was just too “unfair.”
Yeah. Right. Try selling that one again, see how far you’ll get.
The big difference being, these adults don’t have mommy and daddy who are legally responsible for them.
I wanna go live in Nightime Land.
In Nightime Land, apparently, parents are always in control of their children. Grounding them, or apparently speaking to them harshly or something, always results in compliance and obedience. There’s never any need to get the law involved.
In Nightime Land, educating children about things causes those children to make responsible, informed, mature decisions about them, always.
In Nightime Land, there are NEVER any teens who are bound and determined to do the wrong thing, the stupid thing, the thing that will wind up costing them in the long run. Stubborn stupidity apparently doesn’t exist in Nightime Land.
At least, not among teenagers. 
Oh, wait a minute… there are some BAD things about Nightime Land, too.
Apparently, anyone who goes before a judge in Nightime Land who is not found pure and innocent is thrown into The Pit… a choice between a filthy jail full of junkies and scum, or PRISON, which is similar, but much worse.
Apparently, in Nightime Land, there isn’t much of a juvenile justice system, a system which takes juvenile offenses into perspective and deals with them in an assortment of ways… boot camp, halfway houses, legal retreats, or residential treatment centers. All of which are funded a variety of ways, via public funds, private funds, insurance, and so forth.
I am in favor of laws that act as a backup to parental authority. I am NOT in favor of flinging children into adult prisons… or even JUVIE prisons… for being stupid.
Being WILLFULLY, DETERMINEDLY stupid, now, is another matter. And there are alternatives, even for that. Boot camp. Residential treatment. Halfway houses.
Y’see, I worked in this system for twelve years, Nightime. I am AWARE of what happens to children who commit a variety of crimes. And I am here to tell you that only the most vicious of judges would sentence a teenager to jail or prison or even JUVIE jail for having sex and backtalking Mom.
Most likely, the kid would wind up in a halfway house. At public expense, just like jail. He’d work off a short sentence, and recieve education and counseling, do some public service. TRUE, he would have a sex offense on his record… which evaporates like the morning dew the moment he turns eighteen.
If he is determined to be stupid – a second offense, perhaps, or maybe he runs away from the halfway house – then perhaps a judge will sentence him to juvie jail. More likely, he will wind up in a boot camp or social retreat, places that are much more difficult to run away from. If his parents can afford it, or they have insurance, it is possible he will wind up in a locked residential treatment center.
In ALL of these places, he will be with kids who aren’t any worse criminals than he is, really, and he will recieve education and counseling, perhaps therapy, depending on the institution. Boot camps aren’t long on therapy, but they DO hammer on education.
If the teener persists in determined idiocy, or escapes from a boot camp or treatment center… THEN we’re looking at juvie jail. A place where they put actual criminals who, for one reason or another, are not being treated as adults by the justice system… because some judge or other thought that they could still benefit from the juvie system. Juvie jail, or juvie prison, is much like real prison, but with considerably more supervision and education, and less rotting in your cell, by the way. It’s WAY different from real prison, as portrayed in documentaries.
This is what we have in reality. This is how it’s supposed to work.
And if you feel that this is too harsh for minor children who say to their parents “Fuck you. I’m going to screw like a mad monkey, whenever I want, and twice on Sunday, and you can go piss up a rope, Mommy and Daddy,”… then I must respectfully submit that you are out of your friggin’ tree.
I’m pretty sure we all agree that if we catch our kids boinking out in the garage or something, we don’t need to have them hauled off to jail. Plainly, we, as parents, should try to deal with this situation, with love, education, and discipline. At least, I haven’t seen any opinions posted that would seem to say otherwise.
But I have provided a capsule description of the juvie system, here, that would seem to conform to something Nightime said earlier:
So: we have already established that “teens who have sex” are not necessarily “hardened criminals” (snicker) and are treated differently in the justice system, yes?
Far as I can tell from Nightime’s quote, here, we could have a law that would allow teens who have sex to be dragged before a judge by policemen… and WARNED that they could face legal consequences…
…but we could NOT have a law that IMPOSES any consequences! Precisely HOW are we to create a “legal mechanism to prevent them from having sex,” when you REFUSE TO CRIMINALIZE THE ACT? What are we ARRESTING them for, littering?
So, yes. I am quite familiar with how the CURRENT laws work, and I support them.
*If a teen gets busted having sex, his parents should try to deal with this, in a personal and appropriate manner. The law should not be involved.
*If the teen refuses to accept parental rules and sanctions, then there should be a legal mechanism to prevent further sexual activity/flouting of parental authority.
*This legal mechanism is going to have to involve criminalizing the act. Otherwise, there is no legal authority for locking anyone up. Admittedly, if someone is going to be locked up, it should be someone who NEEDS to be locked up, someone who is unwilling to obey any other kind of structure.
*The structure imposed on the child should not be jail or prison. It should be a structured environment that at best educates and provides therapy and discipline. At worst, it should keep the kid from offending again, or getting any worse. In short, juvie jail. And that’s assuming no better alternatives (residential treatment, legal retreats, halfway houses) are availaible.
*All records of the child’s criminal activities are sealed and/or expunged when the child turns eighteen.
Note also that in many cases of this sort, judges DO warn the plaintiffs… and suspend the sentence. They let the little bastards off with a warning. And in many cases, this is enough. It scares them back into compliance with parental directives… assuming the kid has any brains to begin with.
Now, tell me: why is this bad? Why is this wrong?
At least fifteen states have parental consent laws with regard to minors’ abortions. Wisconsin is one of them, although the law permits a family member of 25 years old other than a parent to give consent in some circumstances.
RRruuuHH? Do PLEASE post where I, or anyone else for that matter (besides you), has “elementary school name-called”.
Let’s see now, you said “some people in this thread may well have thought of better laws…”
Well, you’ll never know that, you haven’t read anyone else’s posts. You pick one or two phrases with which you disagree, and then take off on a tangent with them.
As a matter of fact, all three of the people with whom you’ve been so adamently opposed have suggested changes to that law that seems to bother you so much.
Also, why on EARTH are you getting so frothing at the mouth about this? You’re 17, WELL above the age of consent. It doesn’t effect you one way or the other.
But all of your strawmen, (some the size of Aaaahnold), your FRANTIC grasping at absurd and silly “what ifs” (such as the blackmailing pedophile one), it seems as if you’ve got a drastic stake in the outcome of if this law lives or dies.
FTR, you do realize, that even if you were to go to congress and lobby to get this law changed, it’d likely be a long, ongoing process?
If you keep on avoiding the question and trying to pass it back on to others, you shouldn’t be surprised when people think you are actually arguing a position that’s on topic.
My point is that’s it not my business to propose a solution. It’s between the parents and the kids. So trying to ask me for my solution doesn’t cut it either.
You seem to think something is necessary, but refuse to make yourself clear about what you think is necessary and then get in a huff when people think your defending the behavior in the OP.
Just spit it out already, so people know what you’re talking about.
errata: Read Wang-Ka’s excellent post. I think he pretty much covers my feelings as well. He’s expressed quite clearly—with more forethought than I could have.
I support a “mechanism” such as Wang-Ka described. It sounds pretty reasonable to me.
There now, have I told you where I stand yet? I am not as eloquent as Wang Ka, so I appreciate him putting in words what I was too ignorant to put into words.
What I’d like to know from you is what do you think parents of children who are determined to have sex and are determined to disobey their parents—what should the parents do?
Do you think the parents should just sit on their hands, or send the kid off to boarding school?
What if the kids are on drugs? Or are descending into alcoholism? What then? Is it boarding school for the kids? What?
When is the law allowed to become involved?
Do you have any evidence that allowing parents to “hold willful children in check” was the rationale behind the drinking or smoking age? Clearly it’s not the rationale behind the driving age, and drugs and violence are illegal for everyone.
Thing is, when a 16 year old tries to buy beer or cigarettes, he’s breaking the law no matter what his parents think about his drinking or smoking. The law isn’t a tool for parents to use to keep their kids in line, because the parents have no control over its enforcement.
If you think the problem is that parents can’t force their daughters to have abortions, then the solution is to let them force their daughters to have abortions.
I don’t think that’s the solution, because I don’t think that’s the problem. The problem is that parents don’t want to be responsible for raising their children’s children, and the solution is to make the teenagers responsible for raising their own kids.
Ah, yes, the same old lies again. Anyone who wants to know what I really said can look up the old threads. But whatever, that’s in the past. You seem to agree with the plan now as long as someone else proposes it.
Define “flouting of parental authority”. Will parents be able to send their kids to jail (or juvenile hall, halfway houses, whatever you want to call it) for refusing to do their homework? Watching too much TV? Not eating their veggies?
If not, then why should sex be different? Wouldn’t it make more sense to solve the specific problems associated with sex, rather than setting the dangerous precedent of parents using the police to enforce their own house rules?
Yet apparently the final result should the initial methods fail (halfway houses,etc…) is still still incarceration.
Let’s look at what Wang-Ka posted:
So there you go once again, “juvie jail” , “juvie prison”, whatever you want to call it.
Make up your mind.
They should take whatever measures they can, but I see no need to involve the state.
Well these are completely different issues aren’t they?
When someone’s rights get violated (such as threatening the parent or destroying property). IMO consensual sex with other teenagers does not involve a rights violation. It’s actually very normal behavior.
Do you mean to say that most parents want their kids to smoke and drink?
Why do you think such laws were enacted, anyway? Because, at least in part, parents didn’t want to see their kids hooked on booze and cigarettes quite so early.
If these laws were repealed, do you seriously think that most parents wouldn’t strenuously object?
And how do you propose that these children (some could be as young as 13-14 years old) be “responsible” for their own children, while not bringing their parents OR TAXPAYERS into the mix at all?
How do you propose this? Do these kids work full time and go to school full time in order to support their offspring? Yes, or no?
Or would it be OK if the kids took some “night classes” (or alternative form of education) while they worked full time in order to support their offspring? Yes or no?
And would their offspring be in the house of their parents (the grandparents of the offspring)? What interaction would you expect the grandparents to have with this offspring? What if the grandparents (the teenager’s parents) didn’t have room for a new baby in the house? What if the grandparents didn’t want to hear a baby crying all day and night in their house?
Who will look after the offspring when this teenaged parent is at work? Not the parents (baby’s grandparents), surely? How will this teenager take care of this baby without disrupting the lives of his or her parents, who should not have any responsibility for the baby?
You calling me a liar?
And they’ll see that you were indeed a “lone voice crying in the wilderness,” because hardly anyone else bought into your strained premise about how children should be able to give “informed consent” to have sex with adults. I think everyone else there saw the many flaws in your case, including the idea of children being “responsible” (but not really being held to adult standards). It’s all there, in the thread. And I don’t think I’m lying about it—I think my interpretation of it is pretty much in tune with most others who participated in the thread. But I know, I know—you’ll say that we just “didn’t understand” what you meant. Yeah. Right.
No, I don’t agree with children who want to be truly “independent” should not have to be held to true adult standards. No, we have two different things in mind, I think.
errata: OK, so sex between teenagers is very “normal” behavior.
So, who takes care of the babies (if the teens—or one of them decides to keep the babies)? Who? Not the State, surely? Because we don’t want them involved. Not the parents, surely, because we don’t want them involved.
So who is going to provide day care, food and clothing, a place to stay, etc., for the offspring of these two teenagers doing something that is no one else’s business
It’s called “juvie.” I think Wang-Ka is in more of a position to know what it is than most of the rest of us.