Fun Stuff > CHATTER

ba ba da da i need help with my girlfriend

<< < (21/35) > >>

benji:

--- Quote from: ephemere on 19 Aug 2008, 16:14 ---biologically speaking, girls can have children as soon as they get their first period but we look down on that because it's from a social standpoint that it isn't seen as acceptable.

--- End quote ---

There are actually medical reasons to look down on it as well. If a girl gets pregnant before she stops growing, medical problems can result for both mother and child. While it's true that, historically, women got married and started having children at a very young age, they also died in child birth at a very young age at a rather atrocious rate.

P.S. to clarify: the young age was not the only cause of the high rate of women dieing in labor, but was probably one of them.

KvP:
Where the law is concerned the age of consent isn't entirely arbitrary, but I think (and I could be wrong) what SWM was getting at are the rather famous cases where, say, a senior in high school gets thrown in jail for having sex with his freshman / sophomore girlfriend, and the like. It's when you try and justify the legality of a 17 year old being allowed to fuck a 20 year old but not a 21 year old (to use numbers I just made up on the spot) where it becomes really tricky.

And I mean sure, lots of responsibilities are given at 18 along with the right to have sex at your whim, that's a valid point, but still, when you compare a fresh 18 year old with a 17-year-and-364-day old and say one can have a certain right and the other can't based on their age, you can't say it's not arbitrary. But I think that's something we can all agree upon anyway.


--- Quote from: roxie_vinyl on 19 Aug 2008, 16:40 ---Not only that, but how fair is it to the baby being born if their mother is 14 and has nowhere near the resources and/or maturity to raise said child?

--- End quote ---
Ehh... Tricky, tricky. Yours is an understandable sentiment, but watch out for that viscous incline o'er yonder (god, what the fuck is wrong with me today?) The age of the mother is certainly an element, but remember that age and maturity are not necessarily connected. Some teens would probably make better mothers than some 30-somethings. And if we're talking about what's fair to the baby, should we say that the poor should not procreate? Then we're sterilizing the lower classes just like in the 30's and OH MY GOD WILLY NILLY EVERYWHERE. Seriously though, given support by parents or grandparents or the community or the like a young mother should be as well equipped as anybody to raise a child. Prospects for the future may be less than optimal but fuck, when is anything in life ever optimal?

tania:
the problem comes from the fact that you do, i think, have to draw the line somewhere, but then as soon as you draw one it'll always be "well... what if they were just a little bit younger?" it's frustrating but i do still think it's better than no line.
the age of consent in canada before 2006 was 14 and i am still not sure if this is better or worse than 16. i think 18 is a fucking ridiculous age but that might just be me.

jhocking:
It doesn't need to be a line. It can be a gradual ramping up. Like, at 16 you can have a little sex, at 17 you can have a little more, and by 18 you can have sex as much as you want.

Or maybe it can be like a learner's permit for driving. At 16 you can have sex with 18 year olds but not other 16 year olds (ie. learners.)

SimpsonsParadox:
How would you reasonably enforce that? For example: What is a 'little' sex? Who gets to define what number and what (To be crude) positions you get to do with each incremental year? Liberals? Pedophiles? Born Again Christians? Not to mention, you're still describing a line. Who says a 16 year old and 360 days is less mature than a 17 year old and 10 days? Its highly impractical and morally questionable.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page