1.) An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
Well, right here the definition doesn’t apply. There are studies from such longstanding books as “The Kinsey Report,” “Masters and Johnson,” “Human Sexuality,” and even good old “Dr. Ruth” just to name a few, that line out psychological, emotional and physiological fact after fact regardaing young teens not being ready for sex at such a young age. Meaning sex on ALL levels mind you, not just the “can they physically accomplish it and get away with it” level.
2.) The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
Well, simply stating that teens are too young to participate in sexual activities because they’re not fully emotionally mature to handle all of the ramifications, is not “unreasonable” except of course to those who want to “do it”. There are reasons behind parents forbidding it. Just as there are reasons behind parents not wanting their two year old playing outside of the fenced yard.
The two year old isin’t going to understand or believe “mommy and daddy don’t want you to get hurt”.
Neither is the teen going to understand “mom and dad want what best for you, and the complications of sex aren’t in your best interest at this stage of your life because of XYZ”.
Of COURSE they’re not, because no matter how logically, or heartfelt the parents’ reasoning on their restriction, it’s at odds with what the teens want. So of COURSE all reasons will be questioned and disbelieved, and disobeyed. But, by setting the rules in the first place, the parents aren’t being “prejudiced” against them anymore than they’re “prejudiced” against the toddler by keeping him in the yard, or under constant control when out in public.
3.) Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Imposing a rule, or restriction in a particular group’s best interest because of one’s responsibility FOR that group is not “hating, or being suspicious of”.
4.) Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
However much teens might feel as if they’re “going to die” if they can’t “do it,” they aren’t being denied something needed to stay breathing. And it certainly won’t cause injury if they have to wait until they’re of legal age to participate in sex with another person.
“Unfavorable conviction”. Punishing a child for disobeying a rule?
Well, then you’d have to say that parents and the courts were “prejudiced against” kids for punishing them for:
not doing their homework
skipping school
taking the car without an adult driver (if under driver’s license aged)
having a party when the parents are gone
eating the chicken mom said was for DINNER!!!
And on and on…
Whether a person is a teen, or an adult, it damn well DOES matter if you think you can support a child or not!!!
That’s part of the responsibility of having sex. Condoms break. Sponges don’t always work (and I have a son nearly 13 to prove THAT statement!!!), the pill can be forgotten.
And condoms aren’t 100% proof against STDs either.
Again, knowing, and doing are two different things.
As has been mentioned here several times, ADULTS are many times careless about protection. Kids, who frequently can’t be counted upon to consistantly do their homework, or even get up before 1pm on the weekend, aren’t always going to be diligent about birth control in the 'heat of the moment".
The difference is that an adult (I was 31 when I had MY “ooopsie” pregnancy) is established in the workaday world and can make the appropriate decisions regarding a surprise pregnancy, and back it up by being established in the workaday world.
That’s absLUTELY what it means. As an adult, you know that you plan for unforeseen circumstances. That’s why we have auto and home insurance. That’s why you completely “winterize” your vehicle (for those who live in cold states) prior to winter.
That’s why you make sure you have a contingency plan in place in case of fires, etc.
It’s called being responsible. Yes, in an ideal world, condoms would always work, and dewy eyed youths could have lots of “natural” sex and never hurt each other, or anyone else, or have anything “bad” happen to them.
In the real world, the “what could happens” is what keeps us trying to protect our kids from themselves.
It’s the same thing as not letting 10 year olds drive cars. ARE there some 10 year olds who could? Sure. Does the fact that we set a limit at which it’s legal to drive mean that we’re "being prejudiced against them? No.
Is it “evil” or unnatural for 14 year olds to have sex with each other? And are we all just rabid Fundies determined to keep them “sin free”?
No. An age has been set at which it was determined would be the best age for teens to fully comprehend all aspects of the sexual act.
Just as in the example for driving, a line has to be set SOMEWHERE, to protect those that act in their own worst interests.
Yes, we agree, it’s unfair to those who are ready. But just as in every other law in life, “Them’s the breaks”.
Hell, I don’t particularly think that the fact that some companies insist upon a degree in my field to be particularly fair, especially since my experience spans 19 years, and most degreed persons have little or no experience in the field.
See? Even adults have to deal with not getting everything they want, as well as the consequences of their actions. (remember my earlier posts? If I’d have concentrated on school, instead of being “boy crazy” and getting married right out of HS, I’d have GONE to college, sex too early was detrimental to my life).
I think that’s what is called a strawman. But I think that you’re an intelligent enough young man to know that that’s a very silly and irrelevent example.
Again, that DID happen to my boyfriend (not my current boyfriend) and me, when I was 31. WELL into adulthood, and we had a hellacious time of it for a long time.
The point is not “could it happen?” so much as “are you prepared if it does happen”?
For most teens, especially young teens, the answer is no.
There is also the question of “if you screw it all up, do your parents or guardians have to, in some way, share the burden and responsibility for your screwup?”
At eighteen, you can screw up all you want, and nobody HAS to pick up your tab and clean up your mess but YOU.
The flip side of the coin called “Freedom” is “Responsibility.” Without one, you don’t have the other.
What kind of health insurance doesn’t cover the health issues of pregnancy?
What kind of health insurance will give your 14-year-old son’s childhood back after a skiing accident, so he won’t have to give up football or think about being in a wheelchair for the rest of his life?
No matter what a kid does, there’s a chance something will go wrong. Insurance will alleviate some of the consequences but not others. That’s part of life.
Of course, it’s a lot easier to prevent the negative consequences of sex than to prevent an accident on the slopes: all you need is 50 cents’ worth of latex and/or a dollar’s worth of hormones, and the address of Planned Parenthood or an adoption center just in case.
Grapplin’ gravy! You’re claiming to have found the Holy Grail of age of consent debates: actual medical evidence proving that minors are incapable of responsibly handling sex. Now if you’ll narrow it down a little, or preferably find a cite online, we might get somewhere.
Assuming, of course, that teens actually aren’t “emotionally mature” enough to handle the “ramifications” of sex.
Do you actually have cites for kids being sent to jail for all of these offenses, or is this another red herring?
What a shame that modern science hasn’t come up with some way to prevent pregnancy from leading to childbirth, or at least a way to match up pregnant women who don’t want a child with infertile couples who can’t have a child. You’d think groups like Planned Parenthood would be all over it.
You don’t really think the consequences of not doing homework, and their implications for the kid, are even remotely comparable to the consequences of getting pregnant, do you? They aren’t dumb, they know that an unwanted pregnancy is going to screw them over, and that’s an incentive to keep it from happening.
A 14 year old can’t consider her options and realize that raising a child just might be a bad idea when she doesn’t have a job or a car, and still goes to high school? Did she eat a lot of paint chips or what?
Determined by whom? Two 14 year olds having sex is perfectly legal in, say, Missouri. It’s clearly not legal in the state of the OP. Both ages can’t be “the best age”.
That line is called a driving test.
Do you think you or he should have been put in jail for it?
Why should it be legal for an adult who can’t handle a child to have sex, if a teenager who can’t handle a child gets put in jail for having sex? How is that double standard anything but blatant prejudice?
Some parents can buy insurance. Many parents can’t afford to buy health insurance (yet earn too much to qualify for Medicare, etc.), and, human nature being what it is, we can assume that some parents who can afford to buy health insurance will choose to use the money for other things instead.
Should it be illegal for kids who aren’t covered by health insurance to go skiing, or participate in other activities that may cause injury? Should they go to jail for it? Of course not; nothing in life is perfectly risk-free.
You think that’s the sole expense of having a child?
What insurance will pay for child support for 18 years? What insurance will pay for day care?
The point is, that insurance is available to them. They have that option. Most jobs offer insurance—even crappy dead-end jobs offer it.
If they don’t have insurance, they very well may limit what their kids can do, or be more careful in some instances. At least they see the options or choices.
There is no option to buy “irresponsible children” insurance. It doesn’t exist.
It’s illegal for people to drive without car insurance. Would you like to see that law removed?
In the event that the young parents choose to 1) carry the child to term, and 2) raise it themselves rather than give it up, they can get jobs. If they choose otherwise, no worries. Children cost money; sex doesn’t.
Maybe most jobs where you live. My last two jobs (one full time, one part time) didn’t offer any insurance at all. Please don’t avoid the issue: many people who don’t qualify for free medical coverage still can’t afford health insurance.
That’s a non-answer. Should it be illegal for kids to ski if they can’t afford a hospital stay, surgery, and long term care? Should they go to jail for being in a situation whose potential consequences they might not be able to pay for?
Sure there is: if you don’t want to worry about what your kids might do, don’t have kids.
On private property, sure. Oh wait: it’s already legal to drive on your own property without insurance, a license, or registration, as it should be.
The kids in the OP weren’t having sex on public land, were they?
First of all, go back to the first page where we define that there are 2-3 separate issues here. Because you’re asking specific questions and then when you get the answers you’re mixing all three issues up like a grabbag of what suits you to argue about.
If you expect to get answers and debate a topic, you should at least “hear out” all of the people and what they’ve said. And you’d find that a LOT of your questions/complaints have already been answered.
At any rate.
AGAIN.
The issues that have been raised here.
Issue one.
Should the kids be jailed for merely having sex. Based on the posts by most of the posters here, INCLUDING ME, the general consensus is “No”. So, you can quit slamming us with your complaints and arguments and quit “shooting the messenger” right there.
Issue two.
Why do leglislators and parents set the age of consent where they do.
This was the question you, and some of the other teens have asked. And then when we answer, you all keep correlating it back to “well YEAH BUT, why should we go to jail for it”???
Please try to keep our answer to you in the vein in which we answered them. Don’t put words into our mouths. You don’t like it when we do that to you, so offer us the same courtesy.
Issue Three.
Not all kids who are only 14 are irresponsible. No, they’re not. And none of the adults have said they were. Neither have we said this is the ONLY reason that we try to prevent our kids from having sex too early. But as in the above statement. Some of you in this debate keep going back to the “Yeah butt why should we go to jail for it” whine when we answer your questions regarding this.
Again, pay attention to your specific question or comment to us.
If you ask, for instance, as Ryle Dup did me
“What are your personal reasons for not wanting your teens to have sex”…
And I answer THAT specific question. Don’t get confused, or angry or whatever and then throw all three issues into the same pot.
If I answer a specific question with a specific answer, it’s disingenous, and unfair to then pull in other issues.
Now as to your other comments/questions.
quote:
The parents can buy insurance that will help them out in many of the mishaps and scrapes that kids typically get into. But until they can get insurance for “stupid kids risking getting pregnant,” I fear your point is moot.
Health insurance provided for the companies for which many of these parents of teen work, that’s “what kind”.
Health insurance isn’t some kind of magic panacea for whatever the employee feels he/she happens to need. It’s a restrictive “benefit” most times one where the employee has to pay between 20% to 50% of the medical costs incurred.
There are expensive deductables based on different medical procedures, and the employee generally has to pay a fee out of his/her paycheck each month to get the coverage in the first place.
It’s not as if it’s “oh, I’ve got insurance, I don’t have to pay a dime”.
Also, using insurance frequently for a number of appointments etc, causes one’s premiums to go up if the insurance company decides (and believe me, they DO), that your use of their coverage is “excessive”.
Are you yourself a teen? Or do you just work someplace with no coverage? I suspect a teen, otherwise you’d already know this about insurance companies. But if not, I apologize.
[/quote]
What kind of health insurance will give your 14-year-old son’s childhood back after a skiing accident, so he won’t have to give up football or think about being in a wheelchair for the rest of his life?
[/quote]
?? This is a strawman, but oh well. It won’t. Insurance isn’t designed to “give back one’s childhood etc”. It’s designed to cover medical costs. And if one’s child were in a skiing accident where he/she was that drastically injured? The insurance would do just that. However, it is up to the insurance company to determine what they will and will not cover. So unless the parent can find an insurance company that will cover “your stupid teen who goes and knocks up some girl” insurance they’re well within their rights to deign NOT to support same young idiot.
Is this a question? Not sure what you’re looking to say/prove here.
This has been addressed several times by several other posters. It’s not that the knowledge/protective items aren’t there. It’s the potential for kids not using them despite their existance, and their further inability to support the “mistake” should it happen.
quote:
Originally posted by CanvasShoes
Well, right here the definition doesn’t apply. There are studies from such longstanding books as “The Kinsey Report,” “Masters and Johnson,” “Human Sexuality,” and even good old “Dr. Ruth” just to name a few, that line out psychological, emotional and physiological fact after fact regardaing young teens not being ready for sex at such a young age. Meaning sex on ALL levels mind you, not just the “can they physically accomplish it and get away with it” level.
Cite online? Why? Actual medical, and research documents aren’t sufficient? There is no rule that says that a “cite” must be an online one. I matters of psychology, and basic human relations? I tend to VASTLY not trust online sources. A lot of them are just “Reader’s Digest” happy happy nonsense.
As to which chapter and verse refers to children and sex? That would very easily be found in the TOC.
I happen to be at a semi-remote job site at the moment, I have none of my books here with me. I apologize.
At any rate, in answer to your question. No, I’m not, to quote you "claiming to have found the Holy Grail of age of consent debates: actual medical evidence proving that minors are incapable of responsibly handling sex. ". That quote of mine was in answer to Ryle Dup’s statement that by not “allowing” kids to have sex, that we’re being prejudiced.
It was used to define what it is that we ARE doing when trying to prevent kids from having sex too soon. And was ONLY cited within that particular response.
quote:
Well, simply stating that teens are too young to participate in sexual activities because they’re not fully emotionally mature to handle all of the ramifications, is not “unreasonable” except of course to those who want to “do it”.
What is it exactly that you’re agreeing/disagreeing with in my sentence above? Since you didn’t put the entire thought, that which follows this sentence of mine, and which completes the thought, there’s no way to tell.
Again, what point are you trying to prove/argue here? Without my entire quote, it doesn’t make sense.
quote:
“Unfavorable conviction”. Punishing a child for disobeying a rule?
Well, then you’d have to say that parents and the courts were “prejudiced against” kids for punishing them for:
not doing their homework
skipping school
taking the car without an adult driver (if under driver’s license aged)
having a party when the parents are gone
eating the chicken mom said was for DINNER!!!
[quote]
Do you actually have cites for kids being sent to jail for all of these offenses, or is this another red herring?
[quote]
Are you actually READING my threads? Or just picking out what you’d like to disprove?
It SAYS “well then you’d HAVE to punish them for…” NOWHERE did I say these things HAD been done. You need to NOT pick examples out of context and cut them up to suit your own agenda.
If you’d stop, you MIGHT just find we’re working toward a common understanding, as it is, you appear to just be trying to justify what it is that YOU want to do.
quote:
That’s part of the responsibility of having sex. Condoms break. Sponges don’t always work (and I have a son nearly 13 to prove THAT statement!!!), the pill can be forgotten.
And condoms aren’t 100% proof against STDs either.
Once again, totally and purposely avoiding the point. Which was that if ADULTS can have accidental pregnancies, your arguments of “well yeah, but there are condoms and the pill and abortions (Oh mY)” is one that doesn’t count. Of COURSE adults can have accidental pregnancies. The method by which we try to avoid pregnancies aren’t foolproof.
And if adults can have trouble with it, kids, who already tend to frequently lack responsiblity in simple areas, can also tend to lack responsibility in THIS area, with much worse consequences than if it were an adult.
quote:
As has been mentioned here several times, ADULTS are many times careless about protection. Kids, who frequently can’t be counted upon to consistantly do their homework, or even get up before 1pm on the weekend, aren’t always going to be diligent about birth control in the 'heat of the moment".
Asked and answered.
The questions about why adults feel the way they do was asked. And answered. Your getting hostile and snotty with those of us explaining it to you isn’t going to change the law, or parents minds.
All it will do is reinforce that “the maturity level isn’t there for them to handle the responsibility of sex”.
quote:
The difference is that an adult (I was 31 when I had MY “ooopsie” pregnancy) is established in the workaday world and can make the appropriate decisions regarding a surprise pregnancy, and back it up by being established in the workaday world.
A 14 year old can’t.
A 14 year old can’t or many times it’s more that she WON’T always make appropriate decisions based on what is best for her and the baby, no. That is not to say that every single 14 year old that finds herself pregnant is going to make a bad decision.
But once again, based on research, studies and statistics of pregnancy, STDs and other problems related to kids too young engaging in sexual activity, a decision was made regarding at which age kids COULD be considered to handle it.
You wanted to know what some of those reasons were. I, and others are outlining them for you, and you’re busy shooting the messenger.
quote:
No. An age has been set at which it was determined would be the best age for teens to fully comprehend all aspects of the sexual act.
The answer to your question is apparent in your question. In Wisconsin, the voters, leglislators lawmakers etc, determined it was 14. If you’re correct in that in Missouri it’s okay at 14, then the same would stand true.
Again, you’re directing your hostility at the messengers. You asked “how, what, when, why etc” We’re attempting to answer, and your snottiness and venom increases tenfold with every “question” you ask and comment you make.
quote:
Just as in the example for driving, a line has to be set SOMEWHERE, to protect those that act in their own worst interests.
No kiddin? Reaaaally?
The POINT was that, like the law regarding sexual activity among minors, an age was set for that “privilege” to be allowed them. And again, my quote here was made IN answer to someone’s question, and once again you’re beating the messenger to a bloody pulp, all the while shooting YOURSELF in the foot, because you asked the questions and now you’re fighting the answers.
If you’re a teen, who’d like to prove you are mature enough to handle the ramifications of sexual relationships, this is NOT the way to prove that you are. (said in an amused indulgent way, NOT a hateful “you little brat” way :D)
quote:
Again, that DID happen to my boyfriend (not my current boyfriend) and me, when I was 31. WELL into adulthood, and we had a hellacious time of it for a long time.
Remember, refer back to the fact that there are at least 3 different issues here.
I wrote this personal example as a way of explaining why it is that parents try to protect their children from the obvious potential consequences of sex, and in answer to a previous question by Ryle Dup and once again, you’re missing the point, spewing venom, and shooting the messenger.
Not to mention having missed the entire post where I clarified that I did NOT think kids should be put in jail merely for having sex, and where I defined what I DID think the two kids should possibly be jailed for. Again, while related to this post, this quote of mine was made to a DIFFERENT question, covering a DIFFERENT issue within this debate. And that question was basically “why do you, and why do parents try to prevent their teens from having sex”. It was NOT part of the “should kids go to jail for having sex” issue.
I’M not the one who charged the two kids. My stance, this entire post has NEVER been “they should be jailed for sex”. And I’ve explained that THOROUGHLY in several other posts. I’ve also explained thoroughly why I think they might, or might not need to go to jail. AND I’ve explained that it depends upon what really happened, and what is really going on in the household.
I also defined my actual ACTIONS regarding my own teen daughter when she became sexually active.
An adult who can’t handle a child appropriately IS subject to jail. Why isn’t it illegal? Again, you’re mixing up two different issues here. It’s not illegal because the laws state that it IS legal for an a person over a certain age to have sexual relations. WITH that answer I am NOT agreeing or disagreeing with that stance, merely answering your question, As IS.
I’ll leave most of your comments/questions to yosimetebabe for her to answer, but this one I’ll take on.
Actually it’s funny that you should mention that. In many places, such as the great state of Alaska where I live. There are sports where it will soon reach the point where a person IS required insurance prior to being allowed to participate in said dangerous sport.
Legislation is working on passing those laws. For instance, several dozen teams a season try to climb Mt. McKinley, at least once a year, some sort of rescue needs to be done on unsuccessful and trapped climbers.
So far, all that cost is absorbed by the taxpayer and the medical facilities. Not one dime is usually paid by the climber.
It’s been on the agenda of the Leg. session for some time now to seek restitution for these expenses from these people.
How is this similar to a child having sex?
1.) Both chose the activity, and it is not an activity that is of a life or death need. (and please, don’t insult our intelligence, with the “yeah but teens can get depressed enough as it is…” argument, trust me, sex will NOT “save you” if you’re truly clinically depressed).
2.) Neither of the two parties, either the children or the climbers, prepare for possible consequences of their actions should something go wrong. HINT**Wearing a condom is not preparing for what might go wrong (i.e., a pregnancy).
Neither is the blithe, “Oh, I’ll just get an abortion” a reasonable choice for ANYONE to think is “preparation” whether adult OR child
3.) Neither party, either the failed climbers OR teens who do end up “in trouble” have to pay for their mistake. Someone else usually foots the bill.
That’s just to name a few…
So, even if the mother is only fourteen, chances are someone was involved who is old enough to drive, work, and vote. Whether he’ll stick around or not is of course a different matter.
I’m going to have to give up too. Since pretty much everyone has agreed that it should not be illegal for teenagers to have safe consensual sex with other teenagers their own age, I’m having great difficulty figuring out what people are talking about now.
I still wish I could get the point across that IF these teens are delinquents in other ways, then DEAL with those other ways. You don’t deal with a truant or a drug user by having them convicted of sex crimes! Yet people continue to say the sex crime convictions are a valid way to deal with non-sex-crime related problems.
I also wonder why nobody has responded to the point that if this insane law was enforced regularly, anyone who took pictures of teenagers having safe, consensual sex with someone their own age could blackmail them and threaten to have them convicted of sex crimes. What a backwards world you are supporting. You would be putting kids into even more danger.
Nobody has responded to the fact that records are becoming harder to expunge, nor to the fact that these kids might want to get a job or apply to college before the records are erased - good luck.
Finally, nobody has provided any statistics showing that in states where safe, consensual sex between teenagers of the same age is legal, teen pregnancy has shot through the roof and taxes are off the scale. The reason, of course, is that there are no such statistics.
No, I’m not a teen, and I do have health insurance at my current job, so I know how it works.
My point is that insurance coverage isn’t something that makes skiing different from sex. yosemitebabe argued that skiing doesn’t need to be illegal for teens because parents can get health insurance; I replied that 1) not all parents can afford insurance (or, as you pointed out, if they have insurance they may not be able to afford to use it), and 2) insurance covers pregnancy as well.
My point exactly. Please read the post I was responding to.
Again, this isn’t something that separates teenagers from adults.
Potential for birth control failure
Both teenagers and adults can use birth control improperly, or not use it at all. I suspect that experience is more important than age with regard to knowing how to use BC properly.
Inability to support a child
First, teenagers have the same options as adults do: they can use contraception, they can choose abortion or adoption in the case of a pregnancy, or if they choose to have a child, they can get jobs to support it.
Second, teenagers aren’t the only poor people. There are plenty of adults who are unemployed or underemployed, or are incapable or unqualified to raise a child for other reasons. It’s hypocritical to use this as an argument to outlaw teenage sex if you aren’t also trying to outlaw sex between unemployed adults.
Of course not, but you can’t expect me to track down the quote given only a broad list of titles and authors. I live outside city limits, so I can’t check books out from the library; if you can narrow it down to one or two specific books, I can go down there and do research at the library.
My mistake, I missed the meaning of “conviction” in your sentence. As long as I’m rereading that post…
“Detriment” doesn’t imply death. If you’re prevented from doing something that other people are allowed to do, especially such a basic human act as sex, that’s detrimental to your liberty.
There are irresponsible people of all ages. This isn’t an argument against teens having sex.
My arguments don’t reflect on anyone but myself - yet because you thought I was a teenager, you’re using the perceived hostility of my posts as evidence that teenagers as a group are too immature to have sex. Your prejudice is showing.
I’m very interested in seeing these studies and statistics.
That’s my point. You can’t say “these people determined that 16 is the best age for teens to comprehend all aspects of the sexual act” and use that as evidence that teens don’t comprehend the consequences of sex, when similar groups of people come up with different ages in every state and country.
It’s 14 in Missouri, 13 in Spain, 15 in Sweden, and 16 in Alaska. The fact that there’s no consensus on “the best age” suggests that there is no best age - everyone matures at different rates, and drawing a line based on age is just frivolous discrimination.
If you think it should be a crime for teenagers to have consensual sex, then by definition you do think they should go to jail (or be fined, sentenced to community service, etc.) for having sex - what’s the point of a law that’s never used?
OTOH, if you agree it should be legal, then why are we still arguing?
First, please note that I said “why should it be legal?”, not “is it legal?”
And no, an adult who can’t afford a child is not subject to jail or fines simply for having sex. If she gives birth to a child and then neglects it, she’ll be held responsible, but it’s still perfectly legal for her to have sex.
The assumption is that she knows she can’t afford a child and she’ll take appropriate steps to ensure that she doesn’t end up having to raise one. We give her the benefit of the doubt, and IMO we should do the same for minors.
I don’t think it’s quite the same thing, but I’ve heard something about certain hang gliding activities being banned in Yosemite, for a similar reason. It’s just too expensive and dangerous for the State to have to deal with all the accidents and mishaps involved.
But he’s legally forced to be responsible for the offspring. But that still leaves the parents of the 14-year-old trying to pick up the pieces.
But should it be illegal for the 14-year-old girl to have sex with this older guy? I mean, since some of you claim that 14-year-olds can be capable of being “responsible,” and all. You’ve claimed that 14-year-olds can handle the responsibility of birth control, that they can think ahead and be aware of all the possible consequences, etc. etc. With the exception of a situation where the adult is unduly coercing the minor to have sex, why should it be “wrong” for the minor to have sex with the adult if he or she wants to? What if the minor is a “Lolita” type who actively pursues the adult?
Since some of you think it’s so “unfair” that these children are being legally prevented from doing something so “natural,” would you like to see the age of consent done away with, or if not, what age would you deem more appropriate?
Wow, that is a firking STUOOOOOOOOOOPID way to handle it. There is no logical way for both of them to have sexually assaulted one another at the same time without both consenting to sex. It’s extremely irrational to say that minors cannot consent to sex. There is no age where a person cannot consent to sex. Bwaaahhhh! Stupid people.
If there really is a consensus that it shouldn’t be illegal, then hopefully I’ll be done here too. I really don’t want to go over the same old ten page Mr2001/yosemitebabe age of consent debate again.
Agreed. If one of the reasons it’s illegal for these teenagers to have sex is that they can’t support a child without a job, it’s strange to punish them with something that’ll prevent them from getting a job in the future!
Another good point, and I hope someone will address it.
Given the discussion on the risk of pregnancy and the fitness of teens vs. adults to handle an unplanned pregnancy, here is a fact sheet from Planned Parenthood.
A few quotes:
There’s a lot more information on the page, and many cites for studies.
I actually started to look this up because I vaguely recalled reading about increased health risks during pregnancy to teenage mothers and to their babies both before and after birth. This site, the March of Dimes, discusses these risks in more detail.
And I agree that putting teens in jail for having sex is not the proper use of the law, nor the most appropriate response. I also agree that there is probably even more behind the filing of these charges than we are already told in the link in the OP.
