11 year old gives birth to son

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-27 03:32am

That's still disgusting in my opinion. Don't ask me why, that's just how I feel about it.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 03:34am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:That's still disgusting in my opinion. Don't ask me why, that's just how I feel about it.

Same here. Personally, I think that's the best justification of all. I'm just wary of any rationalization that doesn't draw a sharp distinction between pedophilia and me having fun as a teen.

Rev Prez

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-27 03:34am

I meant the notion of children sleeping with each other disgusts me.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 03:39am

This is where I have a problem. It's sick to hear about adults messing around with kids, but what about when kids mess around with each other? Girls I knew growing up were consenting to their same-sage bf at 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. For the most part these were the girls that went through puberty early and had nothing much else better to do. And what about us guys? I lost mine at 13 and I think I was perfectly able to consent--the girl sure as hell did.

Then it's just sad, stupid and scary. It's not sick since it's not a calculated rape as it would be with an adult; just ignorant kids doing something dumb.

As for your "consent" again, it's given in ignorance and immaturity so it isn't the same as if they were mature adults.

If the inability to give consent is the operative reasion underlying statutory rape law, then why do we not apply the same standard to minors fucking around with minors? Does the fact that both (or more) parties are unable to grant consent free them of any responsibility for their action?

For the simple reason that the kid is no more mature than their partner. They don't understand the consequences (the reason the law is in place in the first place) so it would be rather pointless to treat them as if they did. The whole point of the law is indeed to protect them from adult abuse.

Of course kids having sex (and getting pregnant or an STD) can easily enough lead to other sorts of legal problems.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 03:40am

revprez wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:That's still disgusting in my opinion. Don't ask me why, that's just how I feel about it.
Same here. Personally, I think that's the best justification of all. I'm just wary of any rationalization that doesn't draw a sharp distinction between pedophilia and me having fun as a teen.

Rev Prez

There is a moral difference. But it doesn't make it any less stupid or potentially harmful.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-01-27 03:43am

Shaidar Haran wrote:True, but using evolutionary biology to explain it away as BS. The conditions we evolved under no longer apply, hence no need for eleven year old mothers.

Never said there was any need, just said it was biologically possible.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 04:04am

Shaidar Haran wrote:Then it's just sad, stupid and scary. It's not sick since it's not a calculated rape as it would be with an adult; just ignorant kids doing something dumb.

Is it always though? What's the reasoning behind statutory rape law and where's the evidence supporting it? Somebody looking for an objective rationale for the consent principle and not finding one scares more than just running on instinct, especially given the fact that sex between minors is excused.

As for your "consent" again, it's given in ignorance and immaturity so it isn't the same as if they were mature adults.

I disagree. I wanted to get laid. She did, too. I had the condom, and we both understand the medical risks presently known. The sex was great for everybody involved. How is that any different from an adult giving consent?

For the simple reason that the kid is no more mature than their partner. They don't understand the consequences (the reason the law is in place in the first place) so it would be rather pointless to treat them as if they did.

1) What consequences? All consequences? There could be consequences to sex that nobody knows about yet, and if there are then no one, minor or adult, can reasonably give consent.

2) How do we know they don't understand the consequences?

The whole point of the law is indeed to protect them from adult abuse.

I agree, and I think penetration of the issue beyond this leads to some disturbing conclusions.

Rev Prez

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-01-27 05:36am

Gandalf wrote:As for the 8 year old mother, how is that possible? I thought women couldn't carry children until puberty.

Mexico has higher levels of Estrogen in chicken and eggs then is allowed in the US. levels so high boys are developing tits, and girls are starting puburty at age 7-10....

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-01-27 05:41am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:Mexico has higher levels of Estrogen in chicken and eggs then is allowed in the US. levels so high boys are developing tits, and girls are starting puburty at age 7-10....

What do you people feed your chickens? Where's all this hormone stuff coming from?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-27 05:44am

Chemicals, I believe...

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-01-27 05:48am

Well I mean over here you can pretty much eat all the eggs you want without having to fear manboobs.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-01-27 05:52am

An estrogen compound (simular to that used in birth control) is mixed with the grain, that the chickens eat, the female chickens grow larger, have constant ovulation and thuys porduce more eggs. The levels of Estrogen fed to chickens are MUCH higher in South American and Mexico then it is allowed in The US, and Europe and Canada won't let you get away with that sorta thing. End result was that in the 1980s WHO started to complain when they noticed that girls were starting to menstrate earlier and more often in South and Central America, and in some villages where children survived only on eggs and chicken, teenage boys were developing secondary sex features (wider hips, and breasts). They found increably high levels of estrogen in the children.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-01-27 06:15am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:The levels of Estrogen fed to chickens are MUCH higher in South American and Mexico then it is allowed in The US, and Europe and Canada won't let you get away with that sorta thing.

You ain't allowed to put in any of that shit whatsoever here.

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2004-01-27 10:42am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:
Gandalf wrote:As for the 8 year old mother, how is that possible? I thought women couldn't carry children until puberty.
Mexico has higher levels of Estrogen in chicken and eggs then is allowed in the US. levels so high boys are developing tits, and girls are starting puburty at age 7-10....

Why am I suddenly reminded of Captain Hat's little sister?

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 11:23am

Is it always though? What's the reasoning behind statutory rape law and where's the evidence supporting it? Somebody looking for an objective rationale for the consent principle and not finding one scares more than just running on instinct, especially given the fact that sex between minors is excused.

Are you really so retarded you don't understand the concept of a minor vs adult? The whole reason for statuatory rape laws is that children are not capable of giving meaningful consent, they generally lack the maturity and the experience to make good judgements.

I disagree. I wanted to get laid. She did, too. I had the condom, and we both understand the medical risks presently known. The sex was great for everybody involved. How is that any different from an adult giving consent?

Jee, the fact that you were both children makes it different. While I have serious doubts about your present maturity level, there's simply no way a child has the same maturity and descion making capacity as an adult.

1) What consequences? All consequences? There could be consequences to sex that nobody knows about yet, and if there are then no one, minor or adult, can reasonably give consent.

Well, that's a truly moronic appeal to ignorance. Try again some time when you have a real arguement.

2) How do we know they don't understand the consequences?

They might know the potential consequences but that's far removed from being able to make an reasonable, adult consideration of the matter.

I agree, and I think penetration of the issue beyond this leads to some disturbing conclusions.

Those being what oh idiot savant?

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 01:36pm

Shaidar Haran wrote:Are you really so retarded you don't understand the concept of a minor vs adult?

Are you so damned blind you missed where I essentially wrote exactly what you have below?

The whole reason for statuatory rape laws is that children are not capable of giving meaningful consent, they generally lack the maturity and the experience to make good judgements.

Watch, son.

Rev Prez, 1/27/04 wrote:A better justification might hold that statutory rape laws exist to protect those who, for whatever reason, cannot reasonably consent to sex while recognizing that the state is not sufficiently surgical in its application of law to determine who can and can't give consent.

Jee, the fact that you were both children makes it different. While I have serious doubts about your present maturity level...

I don't know whether to go with virgin or acceptance whore here.

...there's simply no way a child has the same maturity and descion making capacity as an adult.

Christ your dumb. Okay, why does the age of consent law vary from state to state?

Well, that's a truly moronic appeal to ignorance. Try again some time when you have a real arguement.

Don't be an idiot. If a necessary precondition for consent is the ability to grasp the consequences, failure to do so necessitates considering any grant of consent null and void. The state may place some condition--an age separating minors and adults, a point when the state can reasonably expect some critical mass of people to understand the consequences of their action.

They might know the potential consequences but that's far removed from being able to make an reasonable, adult consideration of the matter.

And how do adults consider the matter?

Those being what oh idiot savant?

That consent can be granted by young teenagers, troll.

Rev Prez

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 01:57pm

Are you so damned blind you missed where I essentially wrote exactly what you have below?

The why the hell are you arguing it's okay for two kids to screw their brains out?

Watch, son.

What should I watch, boy?

I don't know whether to go with virgin or acceptance whore here.

Ah, can't make an arguement so you just start with personal insults, good for you.

Christ your dumb. Okay, why does the age of consent law vary from state to state?

Because people have different ideas of what constitutes the age of adulthood. It's the same reason that laws vary as to what age a minor can be charged as an adult.

Now exactly what is the point you're trying make with that?

Don't be an idiot. If a necessary precondition for consent is the ability to grasp the consequences, failure to do so necessitates considering any grant of consent null and void. The state may place some condition--an age separating minors and adults, a point when the state can reasonably expect some critical mass of people to understand the consequences of their action.

I'd watch who I was calling an idiot, especially given your title.

Yes, but your point about potential unknow dangers to sexual intercourse is irrelevant to the point. There is a world of difference between the two and you damn well know it.

And how do adults consider the matter?

Hopefully with some maturity and forsight. But that isn't always the case. The key fact of the matter is that they must be capable of a rational, mature consideration. Hence why it's rape to fuck an intoxicated partner.

That consent can be granted by young teenagers, troll.

I would watch who you're calling a troll, boy.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 02:21pm

Shaidar Haran wrote:The why the hell are you arguing it's okay for two kids to screw their brains out?

I'm not in the general. However, in my personal experience it has always been okay.

What should I watch, boy?

Me handing you your ass, homey. So stop ignoring the quote I provided and respond.

Ah, can't make an arguement so you just start with personal insults, good for you.

I separated the flame from the argument so both would stand out. See below.

Because people have different ideas of what constitutes the age of adulthood. It's the same reason that laws vary as to what age a minor can be charged as an adult.

So what science is involved in determining the age of consent, and why is the state a convenient unit of conformity to the principle?

Now exactly what is the point you're trying make with that?

See below.

Rev Prez wrote:Don't be an idiot. If a necessary precondition for consent is the ability to grasp the consequences, failure to do so necessitates considering any grant of consent null and void. The state may place some condition--an age separating minors and adults, a point when the state can reasonably expect some critical mass of people to understand the consequences of their action.

There.

I'd watch who I was calling an idiot, especially given your title.

You might earn one yet, whore.

Yes, but your point about potential unknow dangers to sexual intercourse is irrelevant to the point. There is a world of difference between the two and you damn well know it.

Explain it to me, son.

Hopefully with some maturity and forsight. But that isn't always the case. The key fact of the matter is that they must be capable of a rational, mature consideration.

1) I was 13 years old, she was 16.
2) We wanted to fuck.
3) We understood from health class the medical risks presently known to consenting public at the time.
4) We used protection.
5) The sex was great for everybody involved.

If 13 and 16 were 21 and 24, what other considerations would you add to the above list?

Hence why it's rape to fuck an intoxicated partner.

No shit.

I would watch who you're calling a troll, boy.

Address the point, troll.

Rev Prez

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 02:35pm

I'm not in the general. However, in my personal experience it has always been okay.

So you were lucky and avoided any serious reprecussions. Good for you, you I didn't fuck up my life at 13 medal is on the way.

Me handing you your ass, homey. So stop ignoring the quote I provided and respond.

You mean the one in which you agreed that children are not as capable as adults? Or the ones where you try to insist that your own dumb luck makes it okay.

I separated the flame from the argument so both would stand out. See below.

You had two coherent thoughts, good for you.

So what science is involved in determining the age of consent, and why is the state a convenient unit of conformity to the principle?

Phsycology, but that's hardly an exact science and of course people themselves don't fit neat little models anyway.

As for why the state determines it, it's because states are the ones that make and enforce the law.

Rev Prez wrote:
Don't be an idiot. If a necessary precondition for consent is the ability to grasp the consequences, failure to do so necessitates considering any grant of consent null and void. The state may place some condition--an age separating minors and adults, a point when the state can reasonably expect some critical mass of people to understand the consequences of their action.

There.

Yes, and again. That's the theory behind the age of consent laws. A minor can not give meaningful consent.

You might earn one yet, whore.

Not likely, boy.

Explain it to me, son

The discovery of a new STD (or whatever consequence you wish to imagine) is simply another thing for adults to consider.

A child on the other hand, can not give the mature consideration necessary because they simply do not have the mental capacity yet.

1) I was 13 years old, she was 16.
2) We wanted to fuck.
3) We understood from health class the medical risks presently known to consenting public at the time.
4) We used protection.
5) The sex was great for everybody involved.

If 13 and 16 were 21 and 24, what other considerations would you add to the above list?

Nothing, but you weren't 21 and 24. So hence it does become an issue of whether a child can give meaningful consent to sexual activity.

No shit.

Nope, you might want to make a note of that so you remember.

Address the point, troll.

I have, boy.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 02:50pm

Shaidar Haran wrote:So you were lucky and avoided any serious reprecussions. Good for you, you I didn't fuck up my life at 13 medal is on the way.

Why don't you explain how I could have screwed up my life at 13?

You mean the one in which you agreed that children are not as capable as adults?

In general.

Or the ones where you try to insist that your own dumb luck makes it okay.

Explain how it's luck for me at 13 and not a mature, rational adult at 25.

You had two coherent thoughts, good for you.

And you can too someday, but only if you work really really hard it.

Phsycology, but that's hardly an exact science and of course people themselves don't fit neat little models anyway.

And why is the age of consent conveniently uniform through the state unit?

As for why the state determines it, it's because states are the ones that make and enforce the law.

I didn't ask that. See above.

Yes, and again. That's the theory behind the age of consent laws. A minor can not give meaningful consent.

No, in that quote I asserted that the theory is that minors cannot generally give meaningful consent. It's quite obvious that I, as a minor, meaningfully gave consent.

Not likely, boy.

Keep it up. We'll see.

The discovery of a new STD (or whatever consequence you wish to imagine) is simply another thing for adults to consider.

Yet they're not considering it now. A child who's ignorant of risks an adult is privy to is no less vulnerable to them if he or she engages in risky behavior.

A child on the other hand, can not give the mature consideration necessary because they simply do not have the mental capacity yet.

How's that?

Nothing, but you weren't 21 and 24. So hence it does become an issue of whether a child can give meaningful consent to sexual activity.

Which is what we're talking about, fool.

I have, boy.

Where? On another board? To your mommy?

Rev Prez

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-27 02:53pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:
The Yosemite Bear wrote:Mexico has higher levels of Estrogen in chicken and eggs then is allowed in the US. levels so high boys are developing tits, and girls are starting puburty at age 7-10....
What do you people feed your chickens? Where's all this hormone stuff coming from?

Modern agro-business is highly technological and heavily influenced by the biochem industry. Through the use of various hormones they have made it possible to raise a chicken from hatchling to maturity in about a quarter of the time it normally takes in nature. Those chemicals and hormones are found in the resulting meat, and you eat it. Bon appetit.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-27 03:00pm

Darth Wong wrote:
His Divine Shadow wrote:
The Yosemite Bear wrote:Mexico has higher levels of Estrogen in chicken and eggs then is allowed in the US. levels so high boys are developing tits, and girls are starting puburty at age 7-10....
What do you people feed your chickens? Where's all this hormone stuff coming from?
Modern agro-business is highly technological and heavily influenced by the biochem industry. Through the use of various hormones they have made it possible to raise a chicken from hatchling to maturity in about a quarter of the time it normally takes in nature. Those chemicals and hormones are found in the resulting meat, and you eat it. Bon appetit.

At a recent family get together in Miami, the older Cubans that came over in '60 stood with their sons born and raised here. We were all at least a head taller than our fathers. Leading my uncle to proclaim that there was something in American hotdogs that did this to their children.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 03:11pm

Revprez,

Instead of dealing with your crap one sentence at a time. Put up your agruemnt and defend it. I'm sick of dealing with pointless, peicemeal arguements from you.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 03:17pm

Shaidar Haran wrote:Revprez,

Instead of dealing with your crap one sentence at a time. Put up your agruemnt and defend it. I'm sick of dealing with pointless, peicemeal arguements from you.

I've made my rebuttal. Deal with it.

Rev Prez

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-01-27 03:20pm

The Aliens wrote:unless you can bring up a case of an atheist Communist party chairman doing the same, you're taking a shot in the dark.

As much as it pains me to agree with the turd of shit known as Rev Prez,
he's right. Laventry Beria loved to have farm girls right off the local
collective farm brought to his office still with the shit between their
toes for some hot teen action.