Datheus Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Let's start with this. -edit- Ok, sometimes articles get pulled off the net or just plain disappear. I hate that, so I'll repost it here in case that link dies. Teens have right to have sex, lawyer argues By JAMAAL ABDUL-ALIM jabdul-alim@journalsentinel.com Last Updated: Aug. 20, 2003 When an Oak Creek woman found her 14-year-old daughter nude in the woman's bed with a 14-year-old boy, the teens didn't strike her as being overly concerned. "They both freely admitted that their intention was to 'have sex,' " records quote the woman as saying. They "were confrontational and remorseless." The teens even "challenged" the woman to call police. So she did. Now, the couple's would-be sexual encounter in October has both of them facing serious criminal charges. Their case takes a course through the intersection of morals and law, a bustling crossroads at a time when sexuality has become a greater focus of youth culture. While authorities say their prosecution is meant to help, not punish, the teens, a lawyer for one of them contends 14-year-olds have a right to privacy that allows them to consent to sex with each other, and has challenged the constitutionality of the law. The boy is being held in secure detention on a charge of attempted second-degree sexual assault, a felony that carries a possible juvenile prison term. The girl pleaded guilty to fourth degree sexual assault, a misdemeanor, but is charged with violating her probation; a warrant has been issued for her arrest. Neither is being named because of their ages. Don Linke, the boy's attorney, argues that children's privacy rights include the right to make "important decisions." "One of those types of decisions is whether to engage in sexual relations," says Linke, who will argue his position today at Milwaukee County Children's Court. If Circuit Judge Tom Donegan rules against Linke, the case could go to trial. But prosecutors say children have no right to have sex. "Sex between kids is not legal," said Assistant District Attorney Lori Kornblum, who is prosecuting the case. According to the law, "Whoever has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who has not attained the age of 16 is guilty of a Class C felony." There is no mention of consent. Linke suggests the statute is intended to prevent older teenagers or adults from abusing or exploiting younger, more vulnerable children, not to prohibit consensual sex among teenagers. Kornblum said that while many instances of consensual sex among minors get handled informally, she felt compelled to bring charges in this case. "The reason I charged this case was because of their attitude," Kornblum says. "I believe they had to be brought before an authority." Not to punish the children, she said, but to help them through various court-ordered services. Linke says there are other ways for the court to intervene without the children having to be found delinquent, such as filing a petition for protection or services. Beyond the teenagers' sexual activity lurk a host of other problems. Court records reveal that both come from troubled backgrounds and struggle with the same issues, such as attention deficit disorder and parental abandonment. Prosecutors did try to cut the teens some slack. The boy - originally charged in October - secured a "deferred prosecution agreement" in March. All he had to do was stay out of trouble until Aug. 6 and the charge would have been dismissed. But not long after the agreement, his father reported that the boy "refuses to follow rules." That prompted prosecutors to reissue the charge. The girl - who was not given deferred prosecution because all parties involved agreed she needed services - was placed on probation, and ordered into Wraparound, a monitoring and treatment program designed to help emotionally disturbed youths at home instead of at costlier institutions. But after she repeatedly spent the night out without permission, a warrant was issued for her arrest Aug. 5. It could not be determined Wednesday if she had yet been arrested. From the Aug. 21, 2003 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Ok, so two kids, both 14, are knocking boots. Mother finds them and tells them to stop. They say "No way, Jose." So she calls the police. Now the boy is being charged with a felony and the girl with a misdemeanor. Why they arn't being charged with the same crime is beyond me, but that's not the point here. So what the hell? You're telling me that not only can a 14 year old be slapped with a felony, but he can even be tried as an adult, but still can't have sex when he so chooses? He has enough brains to be able to tell the difference between shooting someone and not shooting someone (Hence being tried as an adult. If they can be tried, there’s a chance that they were able to tell the difference.) So if that is the case, I should think that a boy should be able to tell the difference between sticking it in a girl and not sticking it in a girl. And if he can tell the difference, it should be his choice whether he does it or not. Every other red-blooded American has that right. Why should a kid have his rights taken away just because he’s not 18 years of age? I’ve met plenty of kids smarter than 30 year olds. In the article, they say that the law is to help protect kids, rather than punish him. Right, locking him up in juvenile hall is going to help this kid. I'm just damned sick of the Government trying to play Mommy and Daddy. Your kids are not my responsibility. And when my tax money goes to fund bull**** like arresting 14 year olds for porking and then to pay for their stupid trial, it has become my responsibility. I work my ass off so that the Government can arrest kids for having half-assed sex while some real criminal kicks my ass and steals half of all my worldly possessions? Thank you Government, you've saved the day again! This issue has nothing to do with the Government. And don't tell me about overpopulation in America. The birth rate is negative. It's going down. Our population is going UP because we have so many damned immigrants So I want to know when this became an issue for the Government (i.e., my tax money) and not for the parents of these kids. Shouldn't this mother have originally brought her kids up so they didn't hop into the bed when they were 14? Why isn't she on trial for being a crappy (by most conservative definitions) mother? So I guess the main question you should focus on is this: Should the Government be playing Mommy and Daddy, or should this be left up to the parents? Does the Government really have any business meddling in this? I sure has hell don't think they should be involved. The Government is there to maintain the economy with the least involvement and to make sure some psycho doesn't kill me in my sleep. Beyond that, it should be fair game as to who and when I want screw... (Short of perhaps pedophilias... but that's somewhat of a subtopic that is not wholly involved here.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 I find this incredibly stupid. I mean what you said is true. If the kid has enough brains to decide to not kill someone they got the brains to make a decision as big as sex. and I agree. using my tax money to put these kids in jail is very aggrevating. also the parents should have played a more active role in the kids lives if they didn't want them having sex at 14. I first had sex when I was 15. that means I probably would have been in jail if I had gotten caught and the police came. I think this is a stupid court case and a waste of money and time. not to mention, if the kid goes to jail he'll be raped in the bum more times than you could count him porking that girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datheus Posted August 23, 2003 Author Share Posted August 23, 2003 He'll go to Juvenile Hall, not jail, if I'm not mistaken. Juvenile Hall is no picnic, but it's not as bad as jail... He might just get his ass kicked in J.H., not actually raped. But the point still stands that I'm paying money to send this pinprick there for the crime of sticking his weewee in a girls tata. *gasp* Burn him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 i've been to juvinelle hall. they do have some kids that'll rape you in your bum. scary stuff. i never got raped but i was sure to never go to the showers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Stupid stupid government. Oh man, I'm glad I'm helping pay for a stupid trial. Wow, but not 5 days ago I almost got mugged, probably cuz some cop was out ARRESTING A KID for screwin arond? Who is charging these kids with sexual assault, anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datheus Posted August 23, 2003 Author Share Posted August 23, 2003 Well, they're criminal charges... So it's either the parents or the D.A... Couldn't really say who, maybe the parents. They *did* call in the first place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 oh man.. what is wrong with your government .. its typical for 14 years old to discover and test out their sexuality and there is nothing wrong with that! where did the real problems in this world have gone?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 What the H***, they did break the law. Why they arn't being charged with the same crime is beyond me Christ, with all due respect, read the article a bit more throughout. She, quote, "Needed services" and was "emotionally disturbed", so the court "cut her some slack". I'm just damned sick of the Government trying to play Mommy and Daddy. Your kids are not my responsibility. And when my tax money goes to fund bull**** like arresting 14 year olds for porking and then to pay for their stupid trial, it has become my responsibility. I work my ass off so that the Government can arrest kids for having half-assed sex while some real criminal kicks my ass and steals half of all my worldly possessions? Thank you Government, you've saved the day again! Sex under the age of 16 is extremely stupid, thus the law. What if the girl got pregnant? Would it still be okay with anyone? If they got pregnant, you'd have been "why the H*** did they do that"? Now that they didn't, you're like "let them do it, it's their right". And while I'm no authority on the subject, I'm fairly sure that if you caught two 14-year olds in your bedroom stealing your stuff, they'd get punished too. Yes, it's unfair that criminals go free, but the cops are doing their best. I'd like to see you doing a better job. Their case takes a course through the intersection of morals and law, a bustling crossroads at a time when sexuality has become a greater focus of youth culture. While authorities say their prosecution is meant to help, not punish, the teens, a lawyer for one of them contends 14-year-olds have a right to privacy that allows them to consent to sex with each other, and has challenged the constitutionality of the law. Next it'll be legal for a 40-year old to rape an 8-year old because it's his "right to pursue happiness". No? Why not? These guys can do illegal things at home, why can't the 40-year old? The constitution is not the anarchy code that some people think it is. If it was, it'd override any dang law that was ever created in the name of "pursuit of happiness", "freedom of privacy", etc. Why should a kid have his rights taken away just because he’s not 18 years of age? I’ve met plenty of kids smarter than 30 year olds. Where does it say that he has the right to have underage sex? I've met kids smarter than 30-year old as well, what's your point? If you have sex before 18, you are freaking as stupid as the 30-year olds. In the article, they say that the law is to help protect kids, rather than punish him. Right, locking him up in juvenile hall is going to help this kid. Yes, because it's a deterrant. They can't fine a 14-year old, because then the parents just end up paying the fine. So I want to know when this became an issue for the Government (i.e., my tax money) and not for the parents of these kids. Shouldn't this mother have originally brought her kids up so they didn't hop into the bed when they were 14? Why isn't she on trial for being a crappy (by most conservative definitions) mother? It became an issue when the parents reported them. I don't know if that was a right thing to do either, but if there was no law like that, the parents would have a harder time preventing their kids from doing it. About parents bringing their kids up: You can bring your child up as well as you want, but they'll still want to have sex. You know that. Is the govt. the sex nazis? Well, maybe, but does that make them wrong in this case? Personally, I don't see why you're so upset. I think you should focus on some real unfairness like the fact that gays can't marry or that foreign POVs in America aren't getting lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Sex under the age of 16 is extremely stupid, thus the law. What if the girl got pregnant? Would it still be okay with anyone? If they got pregnant, you'd have been "why the H*** did they do that"? Now that they didn't, you're like "let them do it, it's their right". And while I'm no authority on the subject, I'm fairly sure that if you caught two 14-year olds in your bedroom stealing your stuff, they'd get punished too. err.. 1. having sex means not getting pregnant. 2. stealing = having sex? come on.. we have the year 2003 right now.. what if the boys and girls recieve a good clarifying ..?? i mean everywhere they can see anything about sex .. why should the kids be blamed for a natural behavior (which we are showing them btw) .. ? talk to them instead of punish them for this!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datheus Posted August 24, 2003 Author Share Posted August 24, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle It became an issue when the parents reported them. I don't know if that was a right thing to do either, but if there was no law like that, the parents would have a harder time preventing their kids from doing it. When the parents reported them? So you're telling me that the law just materalized and fell into the books? Time and money was spent on drafting up this brilliant law. The government was involved long before this particular case came about. Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Sex under the age of 16 is extremely stupid, thus the law. What if the girl got pregnant? Would it still be okay with anyone? If they got pregnant, you'd have been "why the H*** did they do that"? Now that they didn't, you're like "let them do it, it's their right". And while I'm no authority on the subject, I'm fairly sure that if you caught two 14-year olds in your bedroom stealing your stuff, they'd get punished too. Who *says* it's stupid? It's stupid because everyone's all hush-hush about sex because it's just so unconceivable that after eons of evolving we might still have a primal urge to get ****ed once in a while. God forbid we ever come in close contact with another, living, breathing human being. So now that the subject of sex is taboo, these kids are not taught to use a condom, they're taught nothing! It is, in fact, their right to get funky. They have a right to do it. That doesn't mean they have to. If every bad thing that you could do to yourself was illegal, then there'd be nothing to do! Cigarettes, driving a car, ****, you'd have to hire a trained professional to cut your steak just because you might cut yourself. If the girl managed to get knocked up, no, I wouldn't feel sorry for them. Sex DOES come with risks. But you forget how many risks you take every day. Even if you didn't get out of bed, you run the risk of a ROCK falling from outer space and crashing through your roof and splattering your brains on the wall. It's not likely, but it's mathmatically possible. Just because there are risks involved doesn't mean the Government should outlaw it. The Government isn't there to protect me from myself. It is, but it shouldn't be. It should have minimal involvement in my day to day life. And I think telling me at what age I can start having sex is getting involved. Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Yes, because it's a deterrant. They can't fine a 14-year old, because then the parents just end up paying the fine. Right, spending time in JH because he had sex with a girl his age will do him good. Every kid should experience JH, because their life just isn't complete without it! Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Christ, with all due respect, read the article a bit more throughout. She, quote, "Needed services" and was "emotionally disturbed", so the court "cut her some slack". Oh? Why weren't these services needed before all of this? And what exactly defines "emotionally disturbed"? I find that people are too quick to jump on something and call it an emotional disorder, or whatever the hell they call it, when really the person is just feeling sorry for themself/lazy/a crybaby/whatever. Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Where does it say that he has the right to have underage sex? I've met kids smarter than 30-year old as well, what's your point? If you have sex before 18, you are freaking as stupid as the 30-year olds. That's what I'm saying. So if kids can be on the same mental level as adults, why shouldn't they have the right to have sex, just like any adult? And tell me, what makes it stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Here's what I feel- I am a 17 year old, and I am a virgin. I plan on being one untill Marraige, but thats just me. If other teens want to do the nasty, it's completely their choice. I don't think it should be illegal for two 14 year olds to have relations. Granted, if I had a 14 year old daughter I wouldn't want her to be um...you know... Now, charging the boy is just stupid. It takes 2 to tango. If it was a rape story, that would be completely different, and I'd say lock him up and throw away the key. However, from this article, sounds to me that the girl didn't put up a fight. Why punish only the male? Burn her at the stake too. I will say that if two people decide to have intercourse unprotected, and the girl ends up pregnant, she should have the child and accept the responsibility of being a mother. And abortion is just plain WRONG in a case like that. Allrighty.... *puts on flak jacket* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 1. having sex means not getting pregnant. Did you mean "Having sex doesn't necessarily lead to pregnancy? 'Cause otherwise I don't get what you mean. 2. stealing = having sex? come on.. we have the year 2003 right now.. They're both illegal, that's what I meant. And they're both wrong. Never said they were as bad. what if the boys and girls recieve a good clarifying ..?? i mean everywhere they can see anything about sex .. why should the kids be blamed for a natural behavior (which we are showing them btw) .. ? talk to them instead of punish them for this!! AGAIN, because it could lead to the girl becoming pregnant at the age of 14, for one thing. Second, they're minors. What if she got pregnant? The two of them would have to stop their lives just to take care of the kid. OR face the massive emotional strain of an abortion (whether they do that or not is their choice, not the choice of some forummer like Obi-Wan13, BTW). Picture yourself in that situation: You're 14, your gf is pregnant. Wouldn't you want to go back in time and just not sleep with that girl? Right, you would. It's as simple as this: It's a too big risk. When the parents reported them? So you're telling me that the law just materalized and fell into the books? Time and money was spent on drafting up this brilliant law. The government was involved long before this particular case came about. I meant an issue for those two kids. Who *says* it's stupid? A good deal of smart people, and most everyone who got pregnant at age 14. So now that the subject of sex is taboo, these kids are not taught to use a condom, they're taught nothing! I've personally been thaught how to have sex 5 times and counting. I've been told how to use a condom 3 times and counting. There's one of the reasons why 14-year olds shouldn't be doing that: They don't have a bloody clue as to what they're doing. Or do you really want to show 11 and 12-year olds pictures of the insides of a penis and clitoris, and tell them about STDs and how to apply a condom just so that when they break the law at age 14 they'll be prepared? It is, in fact, their right to get funky. They have a right to do it. That doesn't mean they have to. If every bad thing that you could do to yourself was illegal, then there'd be nothing to do! Cigarettes, driving a car, ****, you'd have to hire a trained professional to cut your steak just because you might cut yourself. Go to any gun debate thread and there'll be an answer to the "if you were to ban this, you'd have to ban everything" argument. It's been stated a million times and refuted as many times, so I don't really care to state it again when you can easily find it yourself. Right, spending time in JH because he had sex with a girl his age will do him good. Every kid should experience JH, because their life just isn't complete without it! Okay, so you don't want to fine him, you don't want to throw him in JH, if only for one night (which was probably how long they'd have to stay, seeing it's how long sodomy violators for some reason have to stay there). Neither of those? Well... then how do you handhold a law. If you say "just tell him to stop", well, I don't think that'll be enough. If you say they should do nothing, well, then how do you keep people from doing wrong things if you can't get them for it? Oh? Why weren't these services needed before all of this? And what exactly defines "emotionally disturbed"? I find that people are too quick to jump on something and call it an emotional disorder, or whatever the hell they call it, when really the person is just feeling sorry for themself/lazy/a crybaby/whatever. Don't jump to conclusions. The article said that her parents didn't care enough about her, so it mightn't have been discovered that early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datheus Posted August 24, 2003 Author Share Posted August 24, 2003 I think you're really missing the point here. Originally posted by Datheus Should the Government be playing Mommy and Daddy, or should this be left up to the parents? Does the Government really have any business meddling in this? Pointing the finger and saying "They broke the law" won't work. It's the law itself that's in question. And not just that particular law. All of the stupid laws. You've probably broken a good handful of laws yourself. You've be surprised how much stupid crap is on the books. You can't deny that the US Government wastes too much time on stupid things. There was ****ing legislation on whether or not to change all things "French" to "Freedom", for christ's sake... So if kids can't learn at 14, when is a good age to learn? Do you really have proof that any age is better than another? I didn't think so. It depends on the person. And that's exactly why it shouldn't be law. And you say that "smart people" say underage sex is stupid. You seem to imply that all who have sex before the age 16 get pregnant. That's pretty far from the truth. And what exactly makes it stupid if you're not 16 yet? And I will jump to conclusions. "Troubled backgrounds" carries no real meaning anymore. Some people will say that a kid comes from a trouble background because they dropped their popsicle when they were four years old. I want a documents before I believe they really had a "troubled background". I want documents stating that both their parents beat the living daylights out of them. I'm talking hospital logs. I want to see police records. I want to know they were working in their parent's basement making shoes for 2 cents an hour. I want to see video tapes of them skinning squirrels alive. Troubled background this. Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle whether they do that or not is their choice, not the choice of some forummer like Obi-Wan13, BTW ... So they can't choose to have sex... But they can choose whether or not to kill a fetus? If it's their body and their choice, why isn't it their choice to have sex!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 A couple things. Should the gov't be pursuing a case like this, wasting valuable taxpayer's money? No. Were the kids actions, no matter what the reason, morally wrong? No. I know many might disagree with my stance that it's not morally wrong, but morality has to do with goodness and correctness at its core. It's not bad or wrong to have sex. Was it ethically wrong? Maybe. That's a judgement call - it depends on your ethics, which vary from person to person. My ethics dictate that 14 is too young for kids to be having sex, but I'm not the one that matters here. Was it legally wrong? Technically, yes. IF (and that's a big "if") there is a state law prohibiting it. If it's just the girl's parents wanting to press charges (statutory or assault) against the boy, they really should think twice. As was said earlier, it takes two to tango. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 First, I'd tell you that there is definately a lot more to this case than is put in that short, sensationalized story in the news. The gory details are probably not newsworthy in the eyes of the reporter or editor, but those details are essential to the relationships involved. We will never know the details, but they're there and might include anything from truancy, substance abuse, poor parental supervision, poor parenting, youthful defiance, other criminal/borderline criminal acts by the kids, etc. Or it might be that this was a well-adjusted, loving family with two parents, two point five kids, a dog, etc. Either way, it is a bad thing for kids to have sex. Insane will disagree because he's a kid. I disagreed when I was a kid. Hell, I sympathize with the kids, because I remember full well what it was like. But teenagers are "adults-in-training" and haven't graduated to adulthood yet. Until then, they have to adhere to someone else's rules. That includes abstinence. I *do* think that the charges against the boy were unfair... both should have the same charges or none, but the charges were a little stiff. But then again, we aren't privy to all of the information. The other boy could have any number of other complications and the authorities could be using this as a way to get him off the street. Or... they could just be acting brashly. We don't know. I can tell you this: I have a daughter. If Big Daddy Skin walked in and some boy/pseudoman was about to do the nasty with my little girl..... Well, lets just say he would wish I had the cops push felony charges on him! Whew!... I'm going out to hit the heavy bag now... thank you Datheus for planting that thought in my head! She's only two now, but I'm pissed at her first boyfriend already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Did you mean "Having sex doesn't necessarily lead to pregnancy? 'Cause otherwise I don't get what you mean. this is exactly what i meant.. They're both illegal, that's what I meant. And they're both wrong. Never said they were as bad. having sex at 14 is illegal??? strange views/laws .. AGAIN, because it could lead to the girl becoming pregnant at the age of 14, for one thing. Second, they're minors. What if she got pregnant? The two of them would have to stop their lives just to take care of the kid. OR face the massive emotional strain of an abortion (whether they do that or not is their choice, not the choice of some forummer like Obi-Wan13, BTW). Picture yourself in that situation: You're 14, your gf is pregnant. Wouldn't you want to go back in time and just not sleep with that girl? Right, you would. It's as simple as this: It's a too big risk. I meant an issue for those two kids. A good deal of smart people, and most everyone who got pregnant at age 14. I've personally been thaught how to have sex 5 times and counting. I've been told how to use a condom 3 times and counting. There's one of the reasons why 14-year olds shouldn't be doing that: They don't have a bloody clue as to what they're doing. oh yes.. nowaday 14 years old KNOW what they do when they do it.. ok. there might be the one or the other who doesnt is that far in mind .. but most of them are. i COULD have had sex at 14 but i dont wanted to do this with THAT girl who wanted me.. i waited until i tought: "yes this girl is the right one.." and some day it just happened .. i mean we didnt plan it, it was just the moment which lead to my first time and it was ok. it was an experience for both me and the girl and what should be wrong with it??? or illegal? hm. now i am 26 and had sex with only TWO girls. the first at 15 the second at the age of 23.. and this one is the mother of my daughter now.. and we didnt plan to get this baby.. but i am sure there could have been no better time to get a baby! Or do you really want to show 11 and 12-year olds pictures of the insides of a penis and clitoris, and tell them about STDs and how to apply a condom just so that when they break the law at age 14 they'll be prepared? yes. it's better to show them than to show them not, because they will do it anyways. and if they know how to use a condom proper than it just can be the better way to get those first experience with a girl/boy. plus most girls take the pill already at age of 14. you just cant silence this topic until they are 30 or so.. i mean there are people in the US who teach their little 7 year kids how to shoot a rifle .. but sex is absolutely a taboo. CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZY .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker First, I'd tell you that there is definately a lot more to this case than is put in that short, sensationalized story in the news. The gory details are probably not newsworthy in the eyes of the reporter or editor, but those details are essential to the relationships involved. We will never know the details, but they're there and might include anything from truancy, substance abuse, poor parental supervision, poor parenting, youthful defiance, other criminal/borderline criminal acts by the kids, etc. Or it might be that this was a well-adjusted, loving family with two parents, two point five kids, a dog, etc. Either way, it is a bad thing for kids to have sex. Insane will disagree because he's a kid. Sh*t now I'm on trial. First of all hom you make no sense saying both are illegal and wrong. what that implies is that even when I get older, married, and have a stable job I'm doing something wrong. I agree with obi that abortion shouldn't be allowed if she got pregnant, because they did not use protection, but I also don't think sex at this age is wrong, I don't condone it but I won't send you to juvinelle hall just for having sex. and I agree if it was my daughter I'd beat the **** out of the boy and I'd take away everything my daughter had. But I wouldn't send that boy to juvinelle hall just because I don't like him having sex with my daughter because it was consentual sex. And skin, you should know better than to use the "not all the facts" case, in just this without using it in the political debates. I mean surely they leave out details in other things yet we form opinions on that. So I don't want to here ANYONE, condemning Datheus here, he has just as much a right to make a thread on this as anyone does on making a thread on anything else. And Hom, how can natural courses be considered wrong to act out among teenagers when they are exposed to it even in childrens movies. I mean hell look at Titanic, it was deemed teenager worthy but it had ALOT of sensuality. You give kids these examples of things and yet you expect them to not act on them when they trigger the deepest instinct we have. there was a study that humans have three deep insticts, Self-defense/reliance(food and such), sex, and community(something like that). our deepest instincts are mainly the survival of our species, Our way of existence. Thus, Survival = sex and food. How can anyone condemn this when this age was thought the precise age for marriage and sex in the days of our ancestors. this age was considered the ripe age until about the 1720's. Yes I have researched this, It's been a while since I did mankinds primal instinct project. (I was about 10 at the time I wrote it) 6 years from now it still holds true that these facts should not be ignored and people should not be blinded to our history. Sure it was due to the fact that then we didn't have long life spans but it should still hold true today. We have kids dying at early ages everyday, why not let them experience one of the most meaningful, passionate acts ever. We have evolved to make the act of reproduction a meaningful taboo. I find it the most relaxing, most wonderful thing there is. It's not what it's hyped up to be in movies but it's still damn fun and damned emotional. But it's still our most primal instinct next to eating and drinking. If I had the stamina and such I'd never stop. It's the world's most natural high, surely one of you married chaps can vouche for that. You should not take away something as precious and wonderful as sex. if they pass laws like this, soon we'll be raising the ages and it will be 35 before you can have legal sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 So they can't choose to have sex... But they can choose whether or not to kill a fetus? If it's their body and their choice, why isn't it their choice to have sex!? Because they're too young. Think I said that at least once. It's not legal to drive drunk either, but let's say you do and hit a lamp post. It'll be your choice whether to amputate your leg or to try to have it treated and maybe have more of your body die. See? You shouldn't have sex below the age of 16 (at least), but if you do, you should be allowed to deal with it the way you want to deal with it. It should at least be legal for them to give it up for adoption. If you're still sure they should take care of the child, think this trough. They'll have to lose at least a year of HS, which might change their whole freaking lives. Come on, admit it, 14-year olds do not think before having sex. They're like "this feels good, so let's do it". It's not like they plan what to do with the baby before losing their pregnancy. How can anyone condemn this when this age was thought the precise age for marriage and sex in the days of our ancestors. this age was considered the ripe age until about the 1720's So was a good deal of other things. They thought it was right in 1720, so what? Why not let them experience one of the most meaningful, passionate acts ever. Again, let's see how much they smile when they have to quit school and stop their lives for a long time when she gets pregnant. MY god, I didn't realize, I should find someone to have sex with, 'cause I might die tomorrow! Right... What are the actual chances of dying at age 14? Really small. I realize now that this is just one of those threads debates that'll go around in circles without anyone giving up their points, so I'll call it quit and live happily knowing that law won't change. This goes with lowering the age restriction on alcohol, on drivers' licenses, legalizing suicide, and so on. Your "rights" (which aren't your rights at a low age, BTW) versus common sence, IMO. Yes, you can say that I'm biased because of this and that and brainwashed to believe what I'm saying because of govt. propaganda and yadda yadda. Well, for every argument like that thrown at me, I can throw back arguments like that 14-year olds are having sex just to be able to brag about it; about them contracting HIV at a low age, and so on and so on and so on. So just don't. You should not take away something as precious and wonderful as sex. if they pass laws like this, soon we'll be raising the ages and it will be 35 before you can have legal sex. Yeah, let's legalize drugs and alcohol for 10-year olds too. They should experience the wonderful alcohol at least once before they die.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Originally posted by InsaneSith First of all hom you make no sense saying both are illegal and wrong. what that implies is that even when I get older, married, and have a stable job I'm doing something wrong. Nope. Not at all. If the law in the region of this case says that it is illegal, then it is. Even if people disagree. If enough people disagree then they should get the law changed. Being "wrong" is a matter of opinion, I'll admit. But you admit it too See your next quote: Originally posted by InsaneSith and I agree if it was my daughter I'd beat the **** out of the boy and I'd take away everything my daughter had. Why would you do that? You wouldn't see something wrong with your daughter doing the nasty with someone not unlike yourself would you? Originally posted by InsaneSith But I wouldn't send that boy to juvinelle hall just because I don't like him having sex with my daughter because it was consentual sex. I said that too. The way I said it was, I thought the penalty was too stiff... Originally posted by InsaneSith And skin, you should know better than to use the "not all the facts" case, in just this without using it in the political debates. I only stated that because I work with at-risk teens and their families for a living (in addition to going to college and managing a family of my own... talk about full plates!) and there's always more to the story than what you see on the surface. My point was, we don't know what else is involved and that the media, like usual in most stories, undoubtedly showed what they thought would stir the most crap and increase their readership. Originally posted by InsaneSith You should not take away something as precious and wonderful as sex. if they pass laws like this, soon we'll be raising the ages and it will be 35 before you can have legal sex. I agree... but it should be up to the parents to determine whether or not their off-spring are ready for this facet of adulthood. It has been that way in nearly every culture of humanity since recorded time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 *Puts on fire retardent suit* OK, first off, I disagree with the division of society into 'Citizens' and 'Minors'. For a whole lot of reasons, which I'll not get into here, as they rightly require a thread of their own. Rather, I'd envision a sliding scale, so that you could escape the frankly artificial situation that when you're x yrs minus one day, you get belong to one set of rules, and the next day you belong to a vastly different set of rules. That said, I'll make a few general statements: a) The law is the law. The law being wrong is no excuse for breaking it. If you think that the law is wrong, you have to work to change it in the least harmful way possible, which, in a democracy, means running for parlament or lobbying for a change. However, I also think that it is wrong to prosecute 14-yr-olds for having sex. How are these two views compatible? Simple. There is a line for what's right. Then there is a less restrictive line for what's legal. And then there is an even less restrictive line for what should be prosecuted. Doing things that lie in the gray area between being right and being illegal should be discouraged, because, eventually, the response to an abundance of this kind of actions will be tighter laws, which will benefit no-one. Doing things that are illegal, but not worthy of prosecution should also be discouraged, because an overabundance of this kind of actions forces the executive power to become more zealous in its enforcement of the law, which doesn't benefit anyone either. b) I personally think that it's perfectly OK for 15-yr-olds to have sex, except when clause a) is in effect. Below 15, I can see a problem. Mainly this has to do with the culture in Denmark, and so the minimum acceptable age may vary according to local conditions. After 18, however, sex is definitely fair game. c) *I find myself unwilling to take up this discussion, but since someone already brought it up* Abortion, morning after pills, ect. should be available to all people. Why? Because the moment a girl gets pregnant, she is either: 1) A minor, in which case her continued pregancy would be detrimental to both society, her family, and herself, and beneficial to no-one, or 2) A Citizen, in which case she has every right to cut out a part of her own body. And don't give me the 'unborn child' crap. A fetus is, at the early stages of development, nothing more than a hollow ball of cells, which aren't even immediately recognizable as human cells. It has no cognitive skills until very, very late in development, no lung function until birth, and shares the digestive system of the host until birth. That isn't a child. That's a pile of organic matter that cannot even function independently of its host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrackan Solo Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle What the H***, they did break the law. Christ, with all due respect, read the article a bit more throughout. She, quote, "Needed services" and was "emotionally disturbed", so the court "cut her some slack". Sex under the age of 16 is extremely stupid, thus the law. What if the girl got pregnant? Would it still be okay with anyone? If they got pregnant, you'd have been "why the H*** did they do that"? Now that they didn't, you're like "let them do it, it's their right". I agree with you completely, I think that a bad idea to have sex before your 16 too. They are way too young to be doing that kind of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.