I am glad to hear it (and I doubted that you would think so anyway).
I like the idea of kids being able to get jobs. I had my first real job when I was thirteen. Teaches responsibility, responsible money handling, and perhaps even a skill of some sort.
On the other hand, I’m fairly sure no fourteen-year-old is going to find a job that would allow him to survive on his own. Hell, there are any number of people twice his age having a tough time doing that…
Possibly, depending on the specifics of her case. If she doesn’t have food and shelter, and her parents aren’t attempting to provide any in such a way that she can take advantage of it without violating her own legal responsibilities, then they’re neglecting her. If they want her to live somewhere else, they may need to put in a minimal amount of effort to allow that to happen: co-signing the lease, paying some or all of the rent.
Note that they are providing for her, not the baby. But if the baby isn’t welcome in the house, and she needs to take care of it at night, then letting her sleep in the house isn’t a viable option. Just as if she were in a wheelchair, and her parents lived at the top of a building with no ramp.
Which part specifically would you like a cite for: That teenagers will be legally able to hold jobs in the absence of laws against it? That these jobs will supply the teenagers with money? That teenagers are qualified for jobs that will pay their bills?
Here’s a job any teenager can do: telemarketing. $16,000 a year isn’t much, but it’s above the poverty line for a family of 3. Whether this country would be better off with a thousands more telemarketers is, of course, debatable. 
By that logic, adults aren’t required to provide for their children either.
If that isn’t age discrimination, I’m the King of Spain. How exactly do you suppose they’ll distinguish between “children” and “adults”?
Because judging a group based on a certain characteristic they possibly have is foolish and hypocritical when you don’t judge individuals who definitely have it.
How many adults are going to risk making it on their own when government assistance is ready and waiting to help them out?
Better trash the whole welfare system before all those working chumps catch on. Once they realize they could get free money from the government, they’ll just collect their $150 a month and sit around watching soaps, right?
It hasn’t happened with adults, there’s no reason to think it’ll happen with teenagers, unless you think teenagers are somehow incapable of working.
Well, IIRC welfare is time-limited and requires you to prove you’re looking for a job. I’d expect she would have to show that no jobs are available to her that would pay enough.
Now turn it around: 20% of unwed teen mothers provide for themselves. I believe that number would be larger if not for laws that prevent teen mothers from working.
If you’d can point out specifically where I’ve said that, I’ll eat my hat. yosemitebabe sure hasn’t been able to do it.
I realize this isn’t directed to me, but who says you have to be a member of an oppressed group in order to have sympathy for them, or fight alongside them? Blacks and gays wouldn’t have the civil rights they do today if not for the whites and straights who agreed with their cause.
Maybe according to some legal definition of “jail”. Merriam-Webster says a jail is “a place of confinement for persons held in lawful custody”, and that sounds like what you’ve been discussing.
This argument is often used to justify discrimination, since it will only be temporary. I don’t think it’s valid at all: suppose black people had to wait three months to buy a gun, but white people only had to wait three days. The discrimination is only temporary - they can still buy guns, they just have to wait a little longer - but it’s still racist.
You can argue that any 14 year old can still vote, have sex, drive cars, and so on… they just have to wait a little longer. That doesn’t make it OK.
She does have food and shelter; no one is denying her that. It’s just that the baby isn’t part of the package. How she “arranges” to deal with that baby is her problem, not her parents’.
Bull shit. What part of “not disrupting the parents’ lives” didn’t you understand?
Once again—you don’t get it. They don’t want her to live somewhere else—she’s free to stay with them. That’s not the problem. They are not kicking her out. But they won’t allow the baby in the house, because that is not their problem. They don’t have to make room for it, they don’t want to hear the baby crying, they don’t want to see dirty diapers in the trash, they don’t want to be exposed to any of it.
That was the deal all along—we wanted to know if there was a way for the kid to be “responsible” without inconveniencing the parents AT ALL. And you just can’t seem to grasp that.
How many times do I have to repeat this? The whole deal was, the parents are NOT to be inconvenienced. It seems like you don’t want that to happen. It seems like you want to make the parents legally obligated to be inconvenienced. I think the whole deal’s off. You have not even remotely come up with a solution that does not inconvenience the parents.
Find one that doesn’t affect the parents one iota and this hypothetical discussion can resume.
(Because I am stubborn, however, I will address these other portions of your post. This time.)
I earned money at age 13. Hell, I earned it at age 11 (it was babysitting, but what the hey). I just have a hard time believing that a 13 year old can make enough of a living to support a baby, pay rent and very likely day care. You have given me NOTHING to support the idea that they can.
And we are to believe that these telemarketing companies will hire 13, 14, 15 year olds?
I am not pretending to be aware of how government assistance works in its entirety, but when a child need support, the support check is usually made out to the parent or guardian. The check is not made out to the child to cash and spend.
However, when an adult is getting help from the government for their support, the check is made out to them. They don’t have a parent or guardian overseeing the money.
Also, the expectations or requirements for a child getting support are not the same as with an adult. I don’t believe that the government expects a 2 year old to prove that they looked for work but couldn’t find it. Isn’t all of this age discrimination?!?! You want to change all of this so everything is perfectly equal between child and adult?
How many adults have finished high school? College?
How much more difficult is it for an adult to qualify for welfare a kid?
I just want a cite. Cite please. Cite cite cite.
More than one cite, actually, Reputable cites. Reputable cites indicating that changing the labor laws so that kids as young as 13-years-old (well, why start at 13, I was working at 11!) can hold down full time jobs and “put school on the backburner.” And that this is a good thing.
Some reputable cites that prove that 13-year-olds working full time (and putting school “on the back burner”) will be able to support their babies, pay for rent and very possibly day care and make it all work. That they will find such a system preferable to getting government assistance.
A reputable cite that indicates that this is a better solution. That this will reduce teen poverty. That this will reduce the incidence of teen parents on welfare. By a LOT. So at least a majority are not on welfare anymore.
Some cites, reputable cites, please.
And I’d expect that this wouldn’t be too hard for a 13-year-old to do. The telemarketers don’t want to hire kids with “little girl” lisps this week. It would be laughably easy to convince the government that a 13-year-old could not find a job high-paying enough to pay for rent, maybe day care (actually, pretty likely day care) and food and supplies for the baby.
If you think otherwise, please bring out the cites.
Sorry, the baby is part of the package.
If you tell your wheelchair-bound kid he can sleep in a room at the top of a flight of stairs, you haven’t really given him a place to sleep at all - even though the wheelchair is his problem, not yours. If you tell your daughter with a baby that she can sleep in your house, but she’ll have to neglect the baby to do it, then you haven’t really given her a place to sleep either.
Oh, please. Anything kids do can disrupt their parents’ lives. Johnny gets hit by a bus and needs a wheelchair? Think of how inconvenient it will be to put up all those ramps, and widen the doors and hallways. Johnny wins the regional spelling bee? Think of how inconvenient all those press interviews and trips out of state will be.
If they’re allergic to inconvenience, they shouldn’t have had kids in the first place. What would a parent who can’t handle inconvenience do when his son breaks his leg skiing? Throw him out on the street?
If you think the answer is no, you’ve never seen the people telemarketing companies will hire.
You don’t need a diploma, you don’t need shoes, you don’t even need to be sober. If you can remember a script, speak on the phone, and press keys on a computer, you can be a telemarketer. I’m sure more reputable companies have higher standards, but there are plenty of places that aren’t so finicky. And there are other jobs that don’t require any more training or experience than telemarketing.
In the context of this thread, I’d settle for changing the system so that minors who are obligated to support children are treated as adults with regard to employment and related forms of assistance (unemployment, welfare, job training, job placement, etc.).
Well, over 50 percent of adult welfare recipients have a high school diploma or GED, so clearly finishing high school is no guarantee that you’ll stay off welfare.
You must be joking. Since 13 year olds aren’t allowed to work full time, obviously there are no statistics as to how much they earn working full time.
This is really funny. This last-minute desparate effort to change the terms.
The thing we asked was basically to find a solution that would allow the kids to be “responsible” without inconvenience the parents and/or cost them or the taxpayers money.
How many pages of this thread have we been repeating this question? How many? How many times have I kept on having to remind you that yes, I really meant it, NO INCONVENIENCE?
And now you come up with this?
It’s several pages too late, my dear.
I know that kids cause their parents “inconveniece” in all sorts of ways. That’s what parenthood is.
But you want to remove a “mechanism” (as Wang-Ka describes) that gives desperate parents a last-ditch effort to reign their kids in. This “reigning in” is not just for the kids’ benefit, but for the parents benefit, so they can (maybe) be less inconvenienced by their kids’ offspring.
So, if you want the specific “mechanism” removed, you’ve got to find a way to do it without “inconveniencing” the parents who would no longer be able to use the “mechanism.”
That was the deal. I think we’ve spelled it out to you pretty clearly. You’ve known it for several pages.
You don’t want to provde a solution which does not inconvenience the parents. You want to continue to inconvenience (at the very least) the parents, while not allowing them a “mechanism” that might give them a chance at avoiding the inconvenience.
Fine. Discussion over. You can’t or won’t acknowledge the terms of this hypothetical discussion.
You’re getting desperate here. Give me cites backing up your contentions.
Of course. No cites.
You give me vapor. You give me your “belief” that all that you propose will work.
Fine. I give you in return my “belief” that it won’t work. I don’t even have to dig up cites! (Not that I think it would be hard to find cites proving that forcing 13-year-olds to work full time and “put school on the back burner” is a bad thing.)
Hey—it’s over. You give me vapor, you try to wriggle out of the terms of this hypothetical discussion after how many pages of me constantly reminding you of what the terms are?
Well, as far as I’m concerned, this fun little exchange we’re having is over. Unless you can congure up something a little more substantial than vapor. It’s been fun, though.
Ah. Just when I thought we were getting somewhere, we take a hard right back into “asinine.”
Well, duh. By THAT definition, the back seat of a police cruiser is “jail.” So is my daughter’s bedroom, for potato’s sake, under that definition. She is, after all, in my lawful custody, and I have confined her to her room from time to time.
Jail.
Halfway house.
Social retreat.
Residential treatment center.
Youth correctional center.
Youth home.
Community center.
Youth shelter.
These are NOT all the same thing, folks… VERY different, in many cases, even from EACH OTHER… and if you don’t wanna believe otherwise, if you insist that they are all “jail,” well, that’s your delusion, not mine.
I’m not much interested in arguing “inconvenience.” Kids are often inconvenient. What I am interested in arguing is RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE LAW.
This is MY house. And I am responsible for the minor children living in it. This means I am responsible for what they do, and for their care and protection.
If they go out and burn your house down, I am, to some extent, legally responsible for this. I can be forced to pay fines, make reparations to some extent, and under a variety of circumstances, you could sue me. All this, despite the fact there was no gasoline or matches in MY hands.
…but I can’t throw them out. I can’t wash my hands of them, refuse to pay for their mistakes and/or crimes. I am still required to house and feed the little monsters until such time as some judge decides they’re dangerous enough to lock up in juvie, or the back of a police cruiser, or a birdcage, or whatever Mr2001 thinks a “jail” is this week.
It seems to me that under such circumstances, I should have some say, some control, some authority, over what the kids are allowed and able to do… or I should be absolved of ANY responsibility thereof. One or the other.
…and this is the basis for my arguments about laws restricting the behavior of juveniles. Kids wanna drive? No problem. But in MY house, you drive on MY terms, MY rules, or you don’t drive.
Wanna try some booze? MY terms, MY rules, or you don’t drink. Keep in mind that I am not interested in paying legal penalties for permitting you to do something illegal, by the way.
…and while I have no cite for it, I strongly suspect that THIS is why laws discriminate against minors. So long as someone is footing their bills and padding their corners, and while the law does not lean as heavily on them for their offenses…
…so long as they ain’t got the same responsibilities… they ain’t got the same priveliges.
As to this inane argument comparing minors and minorities, and arguing about discrimination…
I do not own any black people, nor have I given birth to any. Consequently, I am not responsible for any black people. I am not legally required to feed and house any black folks, and by the same token, I am not held responsible for any actions taken by any black folks.
Consequently, I cannot exercise any authority over them. Adult black folks share the same rights and responsibilities that I do. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
…but if you are going to wander into my house and sit down for breakfast, then by ghod, you had best be prepared to listen to some terms, and to toe whatever line I lay down, regardless of what color you are. And if you don’t wanna, well, nice meeting you, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
…and if I have no CHOICE but to house and feed you… then YOU have no choice but to toe my line, so far as the law allows me to paint it.
…and under those circumstances, I want as much law to back me up as I can get.
Harsh? A little, perhaps. In truth, my daughter turned twenty-one this past year, so my imprisonments and tortures upon her have been pretty limited. She’s never been arrested, nor has she ever flatly refused to do anything I ever asked of her. I can’t say I ever NEEDED any laws to deal with her.
…but after fifteen years in the mental health system, I’ve seen more than enough to make up for her.
WOW O WOW!!! Yosimite and wang-ka Up 29, the “let kids boink with no consequences whatsoever”??
Zip!!!
I’m bummed I’ve been out of the shop and unable to join the other two musketeers in this fight.
But I do have two questions that have not yet been answered and which have had me curious this whole debate long.
The “child molesters will use this law to blackmail boinking underaged teens” statement.
And the “the state with the lowest teen pregnancy rate has no law against underaged sex”.
First one. What the DEVIL is that whole strawman about? It’s farfetched, silly, REEEKS of desparation and of someone who’s scraping the bottom of the barrel hoping for a defense, because he/she has a personal stake in having, not the argument go his/her way, but in having such a thing abolished because “it’s personal”.
So, what is UP with that “example”???
Second. The “the sate with the lowest teen pregnancy rates have no such law”.
And? This has no basis whatsoever on our debate. Unless you can prove a correlation between the missing “no underaged boinking” law and the rate of teen pregnancy.
Otherwise, Yosimite and wang-ka have done an excellent and fascinating job proving the “pro” side of the issue.
You’d be hard pressed to find a way to let kids do anything without the potential to inconvenience their parents, whether it be going to school, playing football, driving a car, having sex, or even sitting around the house.
A cite for the claim that anyone can be a telemarketer?
I worked at a telemarketing outfit. The qualifications were 1) filling out an application, 2) reciting the script, and 3) wearing a shirt with a collar on it. The training procedure involved listening to experienced salesmen make calls for a couple hours. The employees were mainly college students, but some were as young as 16 and there were a few older types. Some of the employees used drugs (including marijuana and cocaine) before work and on breaks, which the management disregarded with “do whatever you need to be relaxed and confident”.
Of course, not everyone is cut out for telemarketing… you need a certain mindset and charisma to be successful. I didn’t have much of either, I had no sales or customer service experience, and I was still hired full time for $8.50 an hour ($17,000 a year assuming 2000 hours/yr). For the people who can’t cut it, there are other jobs that pay about the same and have similar qualifications: filing, moving boxes, cleaning, kitchen work, etc.
If you’d explained at the beginning that your terms were entirely unreasonable, because “responsible” is a synonym for “inconvenienced” in your dictionary, then we all could have skipped right to the smarmy goodbyes.
Hey, if all you object to is the term “jail”, fine. Whatever you call it, the fact remains that locking kids up–in a “juvenile hall”, “halfway house”, “youth correctional center”, “birdcage”, “re-education camp”, or even a “happy fun zone”–is an inappropriate response to kids having consensual sex.
You don’t “own” any kids either. They’re people, not property, no matter how much some parents would like to treat them as possessions.
In that case, I’m looking forward to your proposals to lock kids up for not doing their homework or eating their broccoli.
“Let kids boink with no consequences whatsoever” indeed. :rolleyes:
Were you even reading the thread?
Apparently you weren’t reading the parts where it was explained (with a straight face) that the law is necessary for parents to “rein in” their “copulating kids” who leap from bed to bed, spewing babies out left and right.
If it really had that effect, wouldn’t you think the states with such a law would have lower teen pregnancy rates?
That’s totally not my point.
Parenthood means being inconvenienced. Wang-Ka explained it pretty well. I explained it last time around. I’m not explaining it again.
Not exactly, a cite that telemarketing firms would employ 13-year-olds (some with “little girl lisps” or who spoke in “Valley Girl accents”).
And a cite that would prove that working these 13-year-olds full time and letting them “put school on the back burner” would be a good thing—I’d love to see that too. But I am certainly not holding my breath!
YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!
Mwahahahaahaha!!!
This is too hilarious!
“You should have told me before that you’d actually expect me to be held to the standards that you REALLY SPECIFICALLY KEPT REPEATING FOR THE LAST SEVERAL PAGES—REPEATING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!”
Come on. Cut the crap. I know you are not stupid. I spelled it out so many damned times. I didn’t spell it out any better this last time, you’re only now finally claiming that you “didn’t understand” because you finally realize that you can’t possibly find a solution that will meet the standards that I’ve only been DESCRIBING IN DETAIL FOR THE LAST SEVERAL PAGES.
Well, thank you for entertaining me with that. It was priceless, let me tell you.
“But I didn’t know you really meant it when you repeated it the first dozen times.”
snicker snicker
Then why would you make such a stupid request, when you Know Full Well™ that anything a kid does may inconvenience his parents?
Obviously they wouldn’t hire the ones who can’t speak clearly on the phone. Where do you get the bizarre idea that a business would hire crackheads and 16 year old drug dealers, but they’d turn a 13 year old away simply because of her age? (BTW, the girls where I worked were paid to verify orders and stuff envelopes, not make sales. Whether it was conscious sexism or a coincidence, I don’t know.)
A cite claiming that anyone working is a “good thing” would necessarily be an opinion piece, and not worth referencing.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you’d misrepresent the content and implications of your own posts.
You didn’t even mention inconvenience until page 6. On page 4 you mentioned “disruption”… and we’re supposed to realize you consider telling her before the baby is born that they want her out of the house a disruption? And you think there’s a way to avoid even that miniscule level of “disruption”? (On page 1 you mentioned “disrupted in a really huge way”, but obviously that doesn’t apply to something so trivial.)
How silly of me. I thought you might possibly have been satisfied with something far less disruptive than police officers hauling your kid off to jail, or juvenile hall, or happy fun zone, or whatever this horny-teens detention center will be called.
It is, of course, possible that you thought your words meant one thing, and I thought they meant something else, with no bad faith on either side.
Just a little slow on the uptake today, are we?
The deal was, if you want to TAKE AWAY the “mechanism” (as described by Wang-Ka) that allows parents to try to stop their kids from going off the deep end (in this specific case, willfully risking getting pregnant or getting someone else pregnant), then you have to ensure that the “inconvenience” that happens (possible unwanted pregnancies and then grandchildren) won’t impact on the parents.
Just that one specific inconvenience. Just that one. Yeah. That one. Because you are “tying the parents hands” (so to speak) by not allowing them to use (as Wang-Ka describes) something that very well might have prevented that specific “inconvenience” (pregnancy and then grandchild).
Good heavens, you are not this dense, are you? No. You’re not. Uh uh. I don’t believe it. If I were talking about all or any inconveniences that children bring upon their parents, I’d hardly be talking about the parents writing checks to support them and feed them, and I’d hardly be talking about parents welcoming the kids in their home, now would I? Feeding ones kids’ and providing housing for them is an “inconvenience” too, don’t you think? :rolleyes:
Sigh. Let’s just go look at all my mentions, shall we?
(I cannot BELIEVE you. This is a new low for you.)
So, I start asking the question on page 4, you are right:
The 100% didn’t tip anything off for you yet, did it?
OK, so I go again on page 4:
Notice “in their house.”
But that wasn’t enough for you, huh? Again on page 4:
Oh, but that wasn’t enough for you either, because I didn’t specifically use the word “inconvenience”? What? You fail English comprehension?
So, here on page 5, I start again:
I guess you missed the "not bringing parents or taxpayers into the mix AT ALL. Hey—it’s understandable. It’s only the fourth time I’ve brought it up so far.
So, I try again:
But that apparently still did not make a dent. So, here, I explain later on in the same post. Doesn’t hurt to be a little repetitious. :rolleyes:
So, seeing that you refuse to grasp it, I try again:
So, right after this last one, I need to try again:
Then I add this, just to make it extra clear:
And now we come to page 6, where it continues to be obvious that either you are pathetically clueless, are feigning pathetic cluelessness, or something:
But then I had to clarify it again:
And then CanvasShoes comments on your apparent cluelessness, and I respond to it.
Apparently you just couldn’t get it, could you?
So I have to try again:
And you seriously think that because I didn’t use the word “inconvenience” in some of the other posts, in all those other things that I repeated, over and over somehow “didn’t count”? That’s pathetic.
I try again in that same post:
Still not sinking in, eh?
14 times—that’s how many I count so far. 14. But that wasn’t enough, huh? You just couldn’t get it, huh? So yes, that’s when I gave up. You’re hopeless.
Oh, one more thing:
Talk about misrepresenting!
No, that’s not what I said. Copy and paste where I wrote that specific thing. Exactly like that. I have no idea where you got that.
Having consensual sex is “going off the deep end” now. Hilarious! Spin away, babe.
Well, obviously one of us thinks so…
Heh, make up your mind. Are the parents “obligated to the teenager”, or do you want them “completely out of it”?
You must have missed my repeated suggestions that the parents provide housing for their daughter if they don’t want her and the baby staying with them. Providing her a bed with the condition that she break the law by neglecting her child in order to use it is no better than throwing her to the curb.
“Exactly like that”… verbatim? Just as soon as you copy and paste where I wrote “I want them to have their cake and eat it too”.
How about right here:
Clearly, you think it’s too “disruptive” for them to let her know she isn’t welcome in the house with the baby before it’s born, so she can find another place to live and the parents would never have to set eyes on that wicked baby. You think the teen isn’t really “responsible” if the parents are inconvenienced in the slightest.
Or will you try to lie, backpedal, and strawman your way out of this one too?
On second reading, it looks like you didn’t miss the suggestion…
…you just want the daughter to neglect her baby in order to stay with her parents. Touching. :rolleyes:
Spin away yourself. Are we just talking about consentual sex here, or are we actually talking about the consequences that come with unwanted grandchildren?
I have explained it and explained it and explained it, but I guess if I don’t constantly keep re-posting my previous quote, you’re just going to pretend that you don’t know what I mean, right? How pathetically desperate of you.
I’ve explained it 14 times, you want to try for 15?
They are obligated to feeding and clothing the teenager, and providing her with housing, health care, etc. But not for her baby. Yeah, that baby. The baby she might have been prevented from having had the parents had the “mechanism” that you wanted removed.
As Wang-Ka put it,
In my personal interpretation of this, you take away the authority the parents have over the kid, (you remove that “mechanism” that Wang-Ka describes) and you also absolve them of ANY responsibility thereof. I asked a question based on this principle, taken to its literal extreme.
You want to try for 16 times?
That wasn’t the deal. You wanted to add new conditions to the deal, but I felt no obligation to allow that. If you didn’t like the deal that I spelled out, (the kid being 100% responsible for her baby) no need to continue to discuss it. Why did you continue to waste my time? I spelled it all out a loooong time ago. And I spelled it out a multitude of times.
But you still refuse to get it. Why am I not surprised?
You give me selective quotes and try to persuade me that I meant something I didn’t mean?
Nice try. Pathetic, but a nice try anyway.
You’re incredible. I give you 14 cites where I described what I was after. 14. You to spin and deny what is all there, that I meant something I didn’t mean, and that I didn’t make it clear what I meant.
14 times.
CanvasShoes had no trouble identifying your cluelessness a while back. CanvasShoes had no trouble figuring out what I was getting at. It’s you that need 14+ times.
That’s enough. Way too much. My patience with your apparent cluelessness (or whatever) has run out. Completely run out. As Wang-Ka put it before, “we take a hard right back into ‘asinine.’”
That’s your MO on this thread, I guess.
No, actually, I want the parents to be able to use “mechanism” so they can perhaps prevent her from having that baby quite so soon.
You are the one who are willing to compromise so drastically that you’d change labor laws so that 13-year-olds could work full time and “put school on the backburner.”
Pathetic. Just pathetic.
Well, I agree with the “pathetic” part.
Ah. Well. Okay. Then do tell me, what IS an appropriate response?
As a parent, I have the right to control my children to some extent. Some parents exercise more control than others.
Let us assume that I will attempt to prevent my child from having ANY sex until whatever the local age of consent may be.
My child says, “Eat me, Daddy. I’m going to screw anything that moves, and I’m going to do it morning, noon, and night, on every flat surface in the house, and the minute you touch me, I’m going to scream rape and drag in Child Protective Services.”
…but having the child interned in some form of restrictive environment, legally, is an inappropriate response?
Please enlighten me as to what YOU would do, here.
The problem with your premise is that you are operating from an extreme position and therefor have pushed your child into a corner. Of course the child is going to rebel…wouldn’t you?
Teenagers have sex, I know I did. Did i bang everything in town? No…Did I want to? Damn Straight…! and if I could I would have, hell I still would, if I wasn’t afraid of frying pan, I mean a Cast Iron frying pan to the back of the skull and that’s just what MY mother would do to me…
Where was I? Right, what would i do? I can’t answer your question. I think your premise is stacking the deck and is in and of itself, part of the problem. What if your decide that you don’t want your child to learn evolution because as a parent you feel that she isn’t ready for that type of thought and your child threatens to call society sevices on you because you’re denying her a “real” education.
Do you get to place her in boot camp for disobeying you? Do you get to have her arrested because she sneaked out with her Hominid Club friends to the Museum of Natural History?
What responibility does a parent have to be reasonable? To see the world as it is and to equip their children to function in it?
The problem that I’m having is that it appears in many instances, it’s the parents that are the real problem here.
Wouldn’t be normal for a parent that knows that teenagers having sex is a real possibility to proctect those kids from the results of sex and not the act? itself?
C’mon Wang-Ka how much sex is going on in those halfway houses, in Juvie, in all the “structured” places that people are recommending as an alternative to parenting? Do you really believe that any teenager this into sex, is going to stop once they’re in those facilities? I know, you must know what happens to young, small and weak teenagers in this type of environment…they’ll be lucky if they get to choose who they have sex with and are now trapped with…Adults included.
This is insane, no decent parent and yes I’m making a big blanket statement, with no cites; should willing place their children into the system. Not unless those children are a danger to themselves or others.
I don’t count a stained sheet or teenage pregancy, or even a STD in those categories. Especially has all of those can be easily and inexpensively prevented.
unacceptable.
This is a flawed and weak analogy. For including,** but not limited to** (I’m not ignoring your other questions, I just have to go on a field job today, and only had time for the one that struck me as the MOST ridiculous, though I would have liked to have addressed some of the others), the following reasons:
1.) Sex is a biological/physiological function whose sole purpose (despite our making use of the “fun” factor) is to keep us keeping the species going.
Skiing, extreme sports, walking to the bus stop, on the other hand, are NOT activities that are designed to get us hit, or have us end up with injured bodies. In fact, our bodies are reasonably well designed to be “talented” enough to handle these activities fairly well.
In addition, parents WOULD be curtailing their children’s more dangerous sports activities, for instance, a 10 year old wouldn’t be allowed on the “Death Run 2002” run when skiing, he’d be kept to a safer, more appropriate run.
2.) Wheelchairs. crutches, ramps and other aides to disabled persons do NOT:
a.) require care and feeding
b.) keep a family up for 3 days and night screaming with colic fits
c.) require clothing, and various expensive gadgets
d.) require later education
e.) and most importantly, it does NOT grow up to perpetuate the cycle by having little baby wheelchairs before it has become a grownup wheelchair.
Frantic reaching for farfetched “what ifs” doesn’t help your case any.
I disagree. The folks defending Wisconsin’s law were the first to raise the specter of teen pregnancy (which is at record lows, BTW). Thus, the burden of proving that age of consent laws are the thin reed preventing Western Civilization from being brought down by teenaged sluts and monsters who will most likely end up on welfare falls upon your side.
So, I ask you to prove that a state like Wisconsin, with such a silly law on it’s books, has a lower teen pregnancy rate than states with no such laws. And I ask you to prove cause and effect.