Nightime, slight nitpick here. Your cites all concern teen mothers. Your cites back up the assertion that of all teen mothers, most fathers are much older. This is a very different thing from claiming that most teens choose to have sex with people much older than them, (which you didn’t claim, I’m just making a distinction). It is also a very different thing than claiming that most teen pregnancies are a result of adult fathers. Maybe pregnancies that are between two teens are more likely to be aborted or adopted ? Maybe the pregnant teen perceives the adult sexual partner as being better off financially, or more mature, or who knows, and that influences the choice to birth and keep the child ? I haven’t seen any cite yet that states that adult men are responsible for most teen pregnancies, which is what you keep claiming.
I know it may sound nitpicky, but there’s enough people in this thread assuming teens having sex = teens giving birth. There is much information about birth control, abortion and adoption available. I would love to know how many teens were parenting as a percentage of how many were falling pregnant, also as a percentage of how many were having sex. Never happen, of course, because teens are by and large secretive about having sex, but it would be interesting.
Nightime: I know you are enjoying this whole melodramatic outrage thing you’ve got going on, but I thought it might be useful to actually clarify what Wang-Ka meant when he used the word “sneaky.” Here, let me quote if for you—it’s back on page 2:
The cites prove that most teen pregnancies that result in a baby have an adult father.
However, this does not mean that teens have sex with adults more often than with other teens. What it means is that teens who have sex with adults are probably less educated about sex, and certainly practice less safe sex. This is perhaps due to how sneaky they must be, due to the illegality of the act. Teenagers who have sex with those their own age get pregnant less often than ever, likely because we are more open with sex education and safe sex information.
It stands to reason that if teens had to be as sneaky about consensual sex with other teens, that they would ask less questions, and not practice safe sex, and would become pregnant more often.
Yosemitebabe - that is not any better.
He is still advocating being sneaky. Teens who have sex should not be sneaky. They should educate themselves, ask questions, and practice safe sex. If they are afraid to get contraception because what they are doing is illegal, bad things will result.
And I think Wang-Ka is saying just that. That if they are “sneaky” enough to protect themselves from the consequences that come from lack of education and preparation, then no one will find out. They will be “sneaky” by being extra careful, extra paranoid, extra vigilant with safe sex practicies—because they want to be damned sure that nothing bad happens and that they don’t get caught.
But oh, never mind trying to accurately represent Wang-Ka’s meaning here. Wouldn’t want to spoil the melodramatic roll you’re on.
You WANT them to ask questions, to educate themselves, and to get contraception.
But at the same time you want to make it illegal?
Fine. He isn’t bad, he’s just crazy. Being uber-sneaky about having "illegal* consensual sex with someone the same age, kind of precludes the possibity that you will be asking questions and getting contraception, doesn’t it?
Do you think that some of these clinics or Planned Parenthood are really going to turn in teenaged kids for asking questions? You think that kids can’t get a lot of information off of legitamate informational sites on the Internet? You think they are living in the Dark Ages here where such information is impossible to find?
So, let’s put it this way—let’s make sure it’s a policy that Planned Parenthood and other such organizations are not obligated to “turn in” any teenagers who come in to ask questions or to receive help or services. (I’m sure this is already the policy.) So these kids can get free, confidential help and they won’t have to worry about getting turned in or “arrested” for it. They can even give phony names or something.
Not that I think that anyone here (except you, perhaps) thinks that there have been or ever will be “teenaged sex police” who drive the streets, hoping to “bust” kids having illcit sex and coercing health clinics to give up information about teens asking questions about birth control and STD prevention.
So, anyway—the kid who wants to be extra paranoid and extra careful can get the help they need to be extra careful and extra paranoid, can’t they?
If the kids are so bound and determined to go against the wishes of their parents and so determined to risk breaking a law (even though they should not expect to go to jail for it), then if they have a brain in their heads, they will be extra, super-extra paranoid and careful, won’t they?
I don’t think that Wang-Ka thinks they should be “sneaky,” I think he’s saying that if they want to do something rather foolhardy like have sex when they are that young and still under their parents’ care, the best way to do it and not get caught and not have any negative consequences is to be “extra careful and sneaky.”
Nightime, in a perfect world, we wouldn’t need laws prohibiting much of anything.
We agree that laws making sex illegal are awkward and unfair. I have also made the point that they’re a bitch to enforce – Yosemitebabe was quite correct when she said that I wasn’t SUGGESTING the kids get sneaky… I was REPORTING that the kids WILL get sneaky! It’s a FACT!
I said that I didn’t think laws will make any difference, as far as the kids are concerned. Hell, AIDS didn’t make any difference, for the most part, and AIDS WILL KILL YOU!!!
If you want insanity, I think that qualifies.
I also never said a thing about sex ed. I’m for it, if that matters. I think this “abstinence” nonsense is the equivalent of parents, schools, and government sticking their heads in the sand, and indirectly contributing to the problem.
Ideally, all the kids will brighten up, learn everything they can about sex, and engage in it ONLY with the proper protections, and only when they feel they’re ready, and with the right person!
…yeah, right. Hell, a fair number of GROWNUPS can’t even manage that, much less the kiddies.
Therefore, I should handle the matter with my parental authority, in a fair, just, and evenhanded manner. I’m pretty sure we all agree on that.
…but what if I can’t? What if the little buggers outsmart me? What if I can’t keep an EYE on them twenty-four-seven?
…and therein lies the rub. Either they respect my parental authority, or they don’t.
And if they don’t… what then?
Nightime, you propose that slamming these kids with LEGAL consequences is too harsh. You may have a point.
…but I propose that the NATURAL consequences of sexual stupidity – babies, STD’s, and everything else – is, frankly, worse. Furthermore, THOSE consequences DON’T disappear off your record, and out of your life when you turn eighteen. The legal records DO… a fact you have consistently ignored in each of your posts, preferring instead to hammer on the harshness of the penalties. Well, boo hoo hoo. Frankly, I think six months in boot camp is a HELL of a lot easier to deal with than six months of dirty diapers, ten years of smart mouth and spilled koolaid, eight years of snarling smartassed adolescent, followed by a fortune in tuition payments. And that’s an understatement, as anyone who’s ever raised kids will tell you.
But perhaps I am wrong.
If you have some sort of alternative method of forcing compliance of teenage children for whom we, their parents, are responsible… then, by all means, share it with us. I’m dyin’ to hear it.
What the HELL are you on about? What alleged argument of mine has no merit?
I have said no such thing. For the record, neither has wang-ka. And if that is what you got from our posts, then you need to read more carefully. Please return to the original posts on this for what was ACTUALLY said. Because this isn’t it.
quote:
They haven’t been yet punished AT ALL, let alone “severely”.
They are PENDING TRIAL, this means that no punishment has been set yet. “Being held” doesn’t mean that the sentence has been passed down. In all court cases, even where the alleged perpetrators are completely innocent, those charged with a crime are “Being held” until they are either bailed out, or found guilty or innocent.
And again, I was answering your statement of "severe punishment’ and ONLY that statement. I was making NO declaration of whether I thought this was right or wrong. Just clarifying the term “severe punishment”.
And as to the overmelodramatic “OH what will this do to their reputations, OH their college careers”!!! Oh my. PUH LEASE. Kids who are this challenging and disrespectful of their parents aren’t likley to have been thinking of their college/work careers when they embarked upon this. Second. They won’t be applying for colleges IF they apply for colleges until they are seniors and 18. As to jobs? The jobs that will hire 14 and 15 year olds aren’t going to be doing background checks on them.
quote:
I think, and yes, I’m “prejudging them” that teens are disriminating enough in their sexual desires to not decide to have sex with an adult JUST to bypass some law.
With this sort of ridiculous and accusatory statement, you’re beginning to prove MY point, not yours. You say you are not a teen, and that you’re working, but…How old ARE you?
I think that your opinion above is highly insulting to teen girls. as if, they’re so determined to have sex, JUST to have sex, doesn’t matter who with, that they’ll just hunt down any old male so that they can “have sex” and not “get into trouble”.
By the way, all that means is “get into trouble” regarding THAT particular law. They can still get reamed on breaking curfew, and possibly any of the other offenses, such as underaged drinking, underaged driving, etc etc, should those things be going part and parcel with their allegedly intense need to have sex just to have sex.
quote:
And again, you’re rather maligning the taste and ability to judge of the teens you are trying to “help” here by this inane comment.
What?
THis makes NO sense whatsoever, and neither addresses, nor answers my statement above.
{quote]I’m sure they’re thankful for the help you are giving them.
[/quote]
Now you’re just talking out of your ass (can I say “ass” in here?). Again, DO please refer to my numerous earlier posts where I say exactly how I DID raise my children regarding sex. Particilarly with my daughter when SHE came of age.
quote:
Cite? Please show where that is what any of the parents who’ve posted in here have stated they were “arguing for”.
No we have not “explicitly argued for it”. It’s becoming quite apparent, that in the heat of whatever little soapbox you’re up on, that you’ve elected to ignore everything that has been said in our posts.
And in addition to re-translate the few statements of ours that you DID read. This, my dear, is NOT “debate” it’s childish arguing and one-upsmanship.
The sad thing is that we’ve all conceded to your orignal point and complaint. Which was that no, NONE of us think it’s “fair” that children should be jailed for having sex with each other.
Then, questions were brought up by some of the teens in the group. Undoubtably because wang-ka and I ARE parents of teens, and therefore relatively “safe” targets both at which to vent some of their frustrations, and perhaps asks questions that they’d like to ask their parents, but don’t want to.
So, in good faith, we ANSWERED those questions, regarding our PERSONAL circumstances. But instead of being able to separate those issues and discussions from the orginal one, you keep trying to stir them ALL together, and paint us as some evil trolls.
Excuse me, but have you MET the english language? You seem to be reading this and seeing french here.
But since you’re having such a hard time. What he meant by this statement was, “here is what is in place”. Here is what we have to deal with. They, the lawmakers, have not provided us with anything BETTER.
So, IN THOSE INSTANCES, where something more drastic is required (and by the way, REMEMBER, he and I BOTH conceded that after reviewing more facts about the case, that the woman in the original post probably didn’t use it as such), then that is occasionally what some parents might be forced into doing.
For some reason, you seem to keep taking our explaining WHY the laws are there, etc as our stating that we think that they SHOULD be there, or should be the way they are.
Probably because, ONCE again, you didn’t understand (or you purposely bastardized) what he was saying.
REREAD his statement, he does NOT say “if kids are sneaky they should get away with it”. Are you dyslexic by any chance? I’m not being facetious. It honestly looks like to me that you’re seeing things that we’re saying EXACTLY the same as you (albeit in slightly fancier verbiage) and getting them BASSACKWARDS from what we actually said.
What on earth is wrong with you? You’re being completely ridiculous. Again, NEITHER of us has thrown our hand in with this law.
All we have done is answer factual questions regarding the law. Like "why is it there’
Well, lawmakers made it so. Etc etc. You seem to be taking our explanations (especially those to people who asked us questions OTHER than you) and thinking that they mean that we agree with it.
Explaining how it works, is NOT saying “and therefore we agree with it”.
I’m not even going to address the psychosis that was your last couple of statements regarding “fathers of teens being fathers TO teen babies and how that causes all manner of sneaking around” it was just too absurd and convoluted.
Originally posted by CanvasShoes
Because we…posted something OTHER than our opinions, in response to the question “why do YOU not want your teen to have sex?” as parents as to why we didn’t feel they were ready?
Neither of which is what I actually said.
In the ORIGINAL post. Ryle Dup asked me what my reasons were for (pay attention now) "not wanting my teens to have sex".
Most of the “here’s is why we think it’s a bad idea” and the subsequent misunderstandings and wails of “but is THAT a reason to go to jail”?? came from.
quote:
Re-read what I actually said, because that’s NOT it. Especially since I VERY carefully lined out what it was I DID mean.
Okay. No, I don’t. Technically speaking, birth control is generally thought of as being prevention. Abortion is after the fact “damage control”.
One is thought out and planned. One is a safety net for someone who didn’t plan. Immature, thoughtless and selfish imho.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to just simply have sex using aboriton as your form of protection. IMHO? It should be used only as a last resort.
People who just have sex anytime, anywhere and don’t worry about protection because “oh well, we can always just have an abotion” are showing a markedly cold and immature outlook regarding life and their fellow humans.
quote:
Really? Pro-choicers think that abortion should be used as birth control? Where have you seen that please? I’ve never seen any of them advocate this. Please keep it germaine to this discussion out of respect for the OP so that this doesn’t seriously derail into an abortion debate.
Sorry, that was my polite way of asking for a cite. I don’t believe that pro-choicers advocate abortion as a form of birh control.
quote:
Sweetie? Please read what people have written more CAREFULLY. And since type sounds mean sometimes, I mean that in an honestly nice way.
I didn’t say “half-feeling” I said halfway feeling.
One who has feelings is considered to be a “feeling” person. Meaning emotional, moral, etc feelings.
I don’t believe that someone who could just airily plan for unwanted pregnancies by using abortion as birth control IS a very feeling person.
Is this a question? An answer to my comment? What? It doesn’t really address anything.
And FTR, and again, let’s not turn this into an abortion debate. But I have beefs with both factions of this debate (the abortion one) and because of that, I personally don’t consider myself either pro-choice OR pro-life. I consider myself a “why the HELL aren’t there affordable, available, 100% EFFECTIVE birth-control methods-ER”???!!!
Not just “my” criteria, but that of many people involved in that issue. And again, it’s prevention, it’s mop up for a screw up. (sorry for the graphic phrase).
The law does make a difference - if teens can be convicted of sex crimes for consensual sex with someone their age, they will be unlikely to be open with their parents about it, no?
Is that a good thing?
Except… that was NEVER my point. My point was that the law should not make this possible.
You are still arguing that the law should make it possible, if only as a last resort. And again, how do you legislate the concept of “last resort”?
Except… it ISN’T in place in most places. In fact I have already provided cites that it is NOT in place in the states with the lowest rates of teen pregnancy. What a surprise. You ignored it.
Why is this so difficult for you? You have already admitted this farce of a law does not reduce teen pregnancy. In fact, by criminalizing consensual sex between teens, are you not guaranteeing that they will be sneaky about it, and thus not tell their parents, and be more likely to not use contraception and to become pregnant?
This is not about “oh, that’s unfair to the poor kids.” This is about a grotesque law that, if enforced, would cause significant damage. You are portraying this law as if it is an “oh, of course that law exists” when in fact this is a relatively new and terrible thing. Even this case alone will likely cause many teens to become more secretive about their sex lives, possibly even to the point of not having contraception because their parents could find it. Since the law has absolutely no benefits, and a huge downside, I am baffled that you continue to defend it.
Oh, but you are just explaining. Oh, of course this law exists. What? It doesn’t exist everywhere? What, it would actually increase teen pregnancy and cause teens to be more secretive and unsafe? Oh… I don’t know… I … I’ll just continue to support it because I’ve fallen in love with this sleazy, abominable law!
Let me get this straight: a kid who is worried about getting caught having sex (or having people prove he or she has had sex) is going to be more foolish and irresponsible and not take precautions and not educate themselves? Why?
If they have a brain in their heads and truly are afraid of getting “caught,” I think they’d avail themselves of the many free resources available to them so they won’t get STDs and won’t get pregnant—since these things would be pretty damning evidence that they’d had sex. (Not to mention the other reasons why these things are worth avoiding.)
I mean,** if they had a brain in their head,** that’s what they’d do. Not the opposite.
The sad thing is that we’ve all conceded to your orignal point and complaint. Which was that no, NONE of us think it’s “fair” that children should be jailed for having sex with each other.
Well then, people need to work to change it. The reason it’s gotten supported and FTR, I live in Alaska, so I can’t “support” (as in vote for, get to congress etc) this law.
You’re getting your verbiage mixed up again. Believing that the law is better than nothing, since there is nothing better to take it’s place does NOT = believing this law should be “possible” or whatever.
I think there needs to be A LAW. This one needs work. But IMHO something needs to be in place to assist parents with children that can’t be controlled. If the people in Wisc decide that a law that attempts to prevent their children from having premature sex is, in Reality, going to (your words) cause them to have sex with much older adults, to NOT use birth control, and to become the targets of sex offenders looking to blackmail them (the most laughable one), then it’s up to THAT state to change that law.
quote]You are still arguing that the law should make it possible, if only as a last resort. And again, how do you legislate the concept of “last resort”?
[/quote]
No I did NOT say that “this law should be made possible”. You keep ignoring this fact, and working yourself into a proper little frenzy with MORE and MORE ridiculous and silly accusations.
Do please post where I said "“this law should be made possible”??
What I said was, IN THE ABSENCE of something that IS an effective back up, it is all that is AT THE PRESENT TIME, available to us.
That is neither agreement with, nor disagreement with the current law. Merely and accounting of what stands. PERIOD.
quote:
But since you’re having such a hard time. What he meant by this statement was, “here is what is in place”.
It isn’t in place in most places? How do you know? Please provide a cite for that statement. You provided a cite for teen pregnancies, you did NOT provide proof that they had no such laws or similar laws on the books.
And the reason I ignored, and HAVE been ignoring your inane babbling about teen pregnancies is because our simple recounting of the law has nothing to do with the teen pregnancy rate of ANY state. We weren’t recounting or correlating it to anything, merely answering a simple question. HINT, that question WASN’T “Is teen pregnancy related to this law in Wisconsin”. YOU are the one beating THAT dead and irrelevent horse.
It’s not “difficult” at all. Since I didn’t address this point, whether to agree, or to disagree. It’s irrelevent to the actual answers and posts we’ve provided, since our posts have nothing to do with correlating this law and decreased, or increased teen pregnancy.
Sorry that might have been too difficult. In other words, we made NO claims that having this law in place would help reduce teen pregnancy.
Your bringing the teen pregnancy angle into this discussion is beginning to border on obsessive. And it’s NOT making any points for your “side”. In fact, your verbiage has melted down into making little sense at all.
First question
In my opinion…
You mean if these two are convicted? Will teens in this state look to this law and become more sneaky? You want my opinion? Or are you demanding a “Cite” which will allow us to see into the future? Likely very few kids will be “more sneaky”. Likely very few 14 year olds are either reading this (meaning following the trial) or even if they are reading are going to CARE “5 minutes from now”.
Also, I have serious doubts as to whether any serious punishment will be meted out. I’ll bet a mexican dinner (my dad’s FAVE food and what we always bet for winners), that they won’t even serve any time, but will get probation and that the whole thing will be forgotten in a few months.
Second Question
Do I think that they’re being “more sneaky will result in their being less likely to use protection”? First, if you think that it WILL then you are again maligning the very people YOU say are “mature enough to handle sex”.
At any rate no. IMO, I don’t think it will increase the rate of pregnancy. IF, they become more sneaky about not getting caught, (the next part of the sentence relies upon the IF in the first), then that increased rate of ensuring secrecy will include getting pregnant, (what says “GUESS what mom and dad, I had SEX” than getting preggers???).
CITE? Or, are you psychic now? Sorry, I don’t buy your dire doomsday predictions as “significant damage”. Those, the increased pregnancy by middle aged men, the lack of using birth control, the blackmail by sex pervs, are all WILD suppositions on your part stated in and attempt to support you silly soapbox posturing.
No, we wern’t “portraying” it as anything. A question was asked of us as to why the law got into the books in the first place, and why the age was 14 in Wisc. etc.
The answer to THOSE questions was “the lawmakers placed it there according to their research etc”. That is NOT equivalent to “of course this law exists”.
New? Cite please? I didn’t see when and where the law was put on the books.
Asked and answered.
Cite? You have no way of telling the future. And since this law supposedely exists nowhere outside of Wisc. There are not precedents or statistics with which to back up this wild leap of illogic.
Well, if you can’t make an actual point, I guess lame sarcasm will have to do.
FTR, I live in Alaska. I have nothing to do with what laws get passed in Wisc.
But, as a final do I think this law is a “good thing” question? I think, that in lieu of a “real” law that would allow parents who truly ARE in a desparate “last resort” situation. That it’s the best they have for now.
Do I think it should be changed and modified to be a less silly waste of taxpayer dollars? OH HELL YES.
The way the law stands now, I don’t believe it’s set up effectively at all. I believe it needs to work simlarly to other laws regarding children. That of the punisment fitting the crime. And without the “splay it out on the front pages part”.
This is part of growing up honeybuns. There are a lot of laws that kids aren’t going to like. Expecially those that try to curtail activities near and dear to their hearts.
Bottomline? The two kids in the OP were IDIOTS. Like bobykitty said, NONE of this would have come to pass if they’d JUST acted like mature responsible people.
The hundreds of thousands of “poor deprived” teens who want to have sex are NOT going to be stopped, or even slowed down by this, what did you call it, “sleazy abominable law” (hmmmm a law designed to keep kids FROM having sex is “sleazy”???).
Speeding laws don’t stop kids who REALLY MUST HOTROD, do so. Drug laws don’t keep kids who MUST DO DRUGS from doing so.
Kids are going to do, what kids are going to do. No silly law, especally one which most kids probably haven’t even heard of, is going to stop kids from getting it on, if that’s what they WANT and MUST do.
And as for birth control? The ones who were already going to be responsible, are STILL going to be responsible. The ones who didn’t give a @#$# Are still not going to.
You’re working yourself into a righteous froth for nothing.
Both sets of parents need to serve up a big pot of Hickory Tea every day for a month and the judges behest if not on their own, and no crying about child abuse!
You have provided precisely zero evidence that this law is needed. How is it better than nothing if it is absolutely worthless and, in fact, harmful?
To be honest, it seems like you have latched onto the idea that parents can have their teens arrested and convicted of sex crimes for having consensual sex with someone their own age, and despite your own intuition that it is a useless and bad law, you are unable to extricate yourself from the seductive embrace of its vile power.
Even in your latest post you are still saying it is better than nothing.
A law which criminalizes a huge number of teenagers, and then crosses its fingers and hopes only those who “deserve it” get arrested, is better than nothing? A law which encourages kids to hide important parts of their lives from their parents is better than nothing? A law which discourages kids from, yes, buying contraception, is better than nothing? A law which serves no purpose and causes harm is better than nothing?
I would have thought that would be the very definition of “worse than nothing”, a phrase which coincidentally also describes the evidence you have provided in this thread.
Nightime—I see how you are avoiding addressing most of Canvasshoes’ copious comments and questions. Like we wouldn’t notice.
Anyway, a few questions:
Do you think that parents have a RIGHT to stop their teenaged kids from having sex? Yes, or no?
If yes, what suggestions do you have to aid them in STOPPING their out-of-control, willful and unruly children from having sex (and possibly “drowning them in grandchildren”?)
If the child just will not submit to their parents’ authority, and WILL have sex, by hook or by crook, what should the parents do? Sit on their hands and watch their kids pop out babies, or watch their kids get STDs?
Please. Enlighten us. What should parents of willful and out-of-control children who are determined to have sex do?
And while we’re at it, how is it that you believe these kids who are (so you claim) mature enough to handle the responsiblities of of sex—how come you assume that these “mature” teens will immediately go out and be grossly irresponsible if such an “anti teen sex” law were enforced in the way that you seem to think it will be? Like I said before (and like Canvasshoes said) any kid WITH A BRAIN IN THEIR HEAD would not be less careful and less scrupulous about protecting themselves, if they truly did not wish to get caught. They would not be less apt to seek out birth control—they’d be more apt to get birth control.
If they were truly mature, and yes, once again, HAD A BRAIN IN THEIR HEAD.
So I guess you’re saying that they don’t really have a brain in their head, since they wouldn’t do this thing that would so obviously help protect them (get birth control)? But you think they’re “mature” enough? So, which is it?
Your melodramatic scenarios just don’t hold water.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nightime *
**You have provided precisely zero evidence that this law is needed. How is it better than nothing if it is absolutely worthless and, in fact, harmful?
I’m sorry if I gave you that impression. I’m not interested in why the age of consent is 14 in this state, or 16 in that state. The fact that there’s no consensus is enough for me to conclude that there’s no correct age, and that setting an age of consent is the wrong way to prevent teen pregnancy, rape, or whatever else the AOC is meant to prevent.
Of course, I’m still interested in the cites you claimed to have earlier. Where specifically can I find these medical studies that show that teenagers are unable to understand the consequences of sex?
I can’t believe I actually need to type this out…
Mr2001: “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?”
CanvasShoes: “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.”
Mr2001: “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.”
CanvasShoes: “You’re NOT the only one I was replying to in that post. You’re not the one to which I was replying WITH that quote either. You need to read more carefully, who posted to whom, and who is being answered.”
Look back through the thread and see for yourself. I think you’re the one who needs to pay more attention to who posted what. You’ve already attributed at least one of my points to Ryle Dup… from page 3:
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.
The law gives her the benefit of the doubt. An unemployed drug abuser who’s deeply in debt, doesn’t own a car or a home, and dropped out of high school still has the legal right to have sex, even though her ability to raise a child is clearly questionable. I’ve known plenty of teenagers who are better equipped to raise a child than that hypothetical unemployed addict.
Of course not - she can make a good choice, or a bad choice.
I agree that abortion shouldn’t be used as birth control, but it is a last resort insurance that you won’t have to have a child. If a teenager uses birth control, can get to Planned Parenthood, and doesn’t want a child, you don’t have to fear that she’ll bear a child she can’t afford.
I think they have a right to ground their kid, or to forbid them to have sex, or send them to a boarding school if necessary.
I do not think they have the right to convict them of sex crimes, nor do they have the right to criminalize all consensual sex between teens so that they have the power to obtain said convictions.
The parent should also remember that consensual sex between teens does not often result in a baby. Most teen mothers had sex with an adult. If then teen is educated and allowed to use contraception, it is unlikely they will get pregnant.
If the teen is violent, as CanvasShoes fears, then that can be dealt with. Violence against your parents, unlike consensual sex between teens of the same age, should be illegal.
If the teen has no other problems, is not truant, does not do drugs, does not steal, is not violent, and still wants to have safe, consensual sex, and the parent is unwilling to send them away to school, then the parent should remember that not only is consensual sex between teens very natural, not only is it very unlikely that they will have a baby, but the parent is not responsible for a baby anyway.
Why are adult men the fathers of most babies born to teenage mothers? Surely they should be the most careful, because they face criminal charges if they are caught?
But that isn’t how it works. Surprisingly, a climate of fear and mistrust does not result in greater maturity. As luck would have it, openness and education works wonders. Crazy, I know. Treat kids like they have rights, and they will be responsible. Treat them like subhumans, and they will act out.
And still, neither you or CanvasShoes has provided any evidence at all that this law is useful in any way. I find it hard to believe that a useless and harmful law can be classified as “better than nothing.”
Are parents legally responsible for their teen children and their actions? Or is it more of a ‘in some ways, yes, in other ways, no’ or a ‘technically, yes, but in practice, no’ thing ?
Are parents able to surrender their children to the state, if they can’t control them ?
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.