11 year old gives birth to son

[The Yosemite Bear]

Also note statutory Rape laws were first introduced a a measure against SLAVERY, since it was normal practice for the brothels to purchase virgin slaves and then auction off said virginity, they would purchase them at younger and younger ages to insure that the slave was a virgin. This sort of expliotation so shocked the minds of 17th century culture that they took pains to make sure that people under the age of 14 were not being enslaved for such purposes. (since then the age bar has gone up, try reading Tom Jones, Fanny Hill, and Moll Flanders)

then came the abolation of slavery, child labour laws, women's sufferage, and other wonders of the late 19th and early 20th century.

So your arguing that because there are emancipated minors (legal term where a teen sues in court to be considered an adult for all reasons, and to avoid perantal interference), STatutory rape laws are obsolte. Conviently ignoring that an Emancipated Teen HAS legaly proven themselves to be responsible and informed, capable of making desisions on their own. They are no longer considered minors for that purpose. (purhaps you should talk to my sister, she got herself Emacipated at age 17 and started having sex with her 20 year old boyfriend the next day)

[Queeb Salaron]

I know other people commented on this, but I want to weigh in one more time.

If the state cannot precisely determine in a manner satisfying its efficiency and equitability interests the age when an individual is reasonably expected to understand the known consequences of his or her actions...

First, let's be clear. There is no ONE law governing statutory rape. The age of consent differs from state to state. Second, the very fact that states DO "precisely determine... the age when an individual is reasonably expected to understand the known consequences of his or her actions," (in my state it's the age of 16, but in others it's as low as 14), the premise on which you base your argument would seem to be invalid. Unless there's some other inference that can be drawn that I am missing.

...the state is then devising broad laws that may impose upon consensual relationships in the interest of protecting as many people who cannot consent as possible...

The state imposes age restrictions, yes. And it is true that some 15-year olds may be old enough to maturely consent to sexual activity. But aside from a definite age barrier there is no legal way to prove that such maturity exists except on a case-by-case basis. The legal ramifications of such a change in policy would not only be illogical, it would be tremendously expensive and detremental to criminal prosecution entirely.

...and enforce such laws with sufficient discretion commensurate with the legistlature's intent as to ensure that truly consensual relationships do not face any undue burden.

Yes, but this is the primary function of the law in general. Those who are innocent of a crime must not come under fire for that crime without sufficient evidence suggesting otherwise. It is not a matter of convenience, but rather a matter of justice. There are, of course, implications made by this statement in light of your argument: We must ask who, then, are considered involved in "truly consensual relationships" and who are not? I have argued that the only just way to both ensure consent and protect those incapable of giving it is to establish a legal age at which it is deemed appropriate / possible for a person to give it without fear of outside duress. Any other process would deal with the abstraction of psychological influences and maturity, neither of which are tangible enough to present a solid case in a court of law.

My two cents.

Edited for spelling.

[aphexmonster]

OK she`s 11 year old so i`m assuming she was impregnated at 10 then what kind of fucker do this to a child.

a peddophile obviously ... and this is why we throw those sick fucks in jail

[The Aliens]

Sorry, but would like to point out a nitpcik- paedophiles are fine as long as they don't act on their urges. We can't group people because of what they think, just on what they do.

[General Zod]

Sorry, but would like to point out a nitpcik- paedophiles are fine as long as they don't act on their urges. We can't group people because of what they think, just on what they do.

one problem with that line of thinking. they aren't a pedophile until they actually act out on those urges, whether through the act itself or downloading child porn, etc. until then they're just a regular person. it'd be like calling someone a murderer just because they think about killing someone, but saying they're fine as long as they don't act on those impulses.

[SAMAS]

Sorry, but would like to point out a nitpcik- paedophiles are fine as long as they don't act on their urges. We can't group people because of what they think, just on what they do.

one problem with that line of thinking. they aren't a pedophile until they actually act out on those urges, whether through the act itself or downloading child porn, etc. until then they're just a regular person. it'd be like calling someone a murderer just because they think about killing someone, but saying they're fine as long as they don't act on those impulses.

Read these threads more. There are quite a few people many on this forum would love to kill.

[The Aliens]

Sorry, but would like to point out a nitpcik- paedophiles are fine as long as they don't act on their urges. We can't group people because of what they think, just on what they do.

one problem with that line of thinking. they aren't a pedophile until they actually act out on those urges, whether through the act itself or downloading child porn, etc. until then they're just a regular person. it'd be like calling someone a murderer just because they think about killing someone, but saying they're fine as long as they don't act on those impulses.

I'm sorry, but that's not true. A paedophile is just someone sexually attracted to children- that isn't necessarily a physical manifestation. Almost everyone has thoughts of wanting to kill people, but not everyone has thoughts of sex with minors. I stress that paedophilia is a sexual attraction, not an act- child molestation is wrong in all cases, but if someone harbours thoughts of sex with minors and never acts on him he can hardly be considered a criminal.

SAMAS- you don't refer to me when saying there are quite a few people many on this forum would love to kill, do you? Just unclear from context.

[Rogue 9]

Okay, RevPrez asked someone to explain to him exactly how he could have screwed up his life at 13 and everyone got distracted by other things, so I will. Here's the list.

You could have gotten:

1.) her pregnant.
2.) AIDS
3.) syphilis.
4.) gonnorhea
5.) chlamydia
6.) a lot of other nasty bugs
7.) arrested.
8.) killed by angry parents.

That's only a partial listing. Shall I go on?

Oh, and about that survey with only 20% of teens abstaining all through being teens: I knew it was bad, but that bad? Man.

[aphexmonster]

Sorry, but would like to point out a nitpcik- paedophiles are fine as long as they don't act on their urges. We can't group people because of what they think, just on what they do.

one problem with that line of thinking. they aren't a pedophile until they actually act out on those urges, whether through the act itself or downloading child porn, etc. until then they're just a regular person. it'd be like calling someone a murderer just because they think about killing someone, but saying they're fine as long as they don't act on those impulses.

I'm sorry, but that's not true. A paedophile is just someone sexually attracted to children- that isn't necessarily a physical manifestation. Almost everyone has thoughts of wanting to kill people, but not everyone has thoughts of sex with minors. I stress that paedophilia is a sexual attraction, not an act- child molestation is wrong in all cases, but if someone harbours thoughts of sex with minors and never acts on him he can hardly be considered a criminal.

SAMAS- you don't refer to me when saying there are quite a few people many on this forum would love to kill, do you? Just unclear from context.

Some pedophiles are sick fucks .... some are not .... i.e.

Brittany spears first came out -----> damn shes hot ...

Oldson Twins first came out -----> damn their hot! ...




=T

[The Yosemite Bear]

Ahh late teens and barely legals....

or your typical anime fanboys....

[revprez]

Okay, RevPrez asked someone to explain to him exactly how he could have screwed up his life at 13 and everyone got distracted by other things, so I will.

Not exactly, Rogue. I asked how I did, and what greater risk did I incur someone who's 18 or 19 or 20 does not?

1.) her pregnant.
2.) AIDS
3.) syphilis.
4.) gonnorhea
5.) chlamydia
6.) a lot of other nasty bugs
7.) arrested.
8.) killed by angry parents.

That's only a partial listing. Shall I go on?

Sure, you can also point out anything on that list that doesn't apply to adults.

Oh, and about that survey with only 20% of teens abstaining all through being teens: I knew it was bad, but that bad? Man.

I don't think of it as a bad thing.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

First, let's be clear. There is no ONE law governing statutory rape....

Correct me if I'm wrong, Queen, but didn't I already reply to this?

Rev Prez

[Queeb Salaron]

Not exactly, Rogue. I asked how I did, and what greater risk did I incur someone who's 18 or 19 or 20 does not?

Let me answer this simply:

It's very difficult to get a job without a high school diploma. Babies + High School = Wicked Bad Shit.

It is easier, arguably, for a high school graduate to deal with children, though perhaps only marginally so. So if you consider losing an education a risk, as I know many people on this board would, then that's one.