11 year old gives birth to son

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-27 03:21pm

Haran;

His argument boils down to: Even if people are incapable of making an informed, responsible decision, they should be allowed to because he did, and he's alright.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-27 03:22pm

revprez wrote:
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

Post it, surely it can't be that hard to simply put it together in a coherent paragraph or two.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 03:43pm

Shaidar Haran wrote:Post it, surely it can't be that hard to simply put it together in a coherent paragraph or two.

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, 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 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.

Rev Prez

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2004-01-27 04:00pm

revprez wrote:
Shaidar Haran wrote:Post it, surely it can't be that hard to simply put it together in a coherent paragraph or two.
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, 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 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.

Rev Prez

I hate Legalese...

So what you're saying is that general Age of Consent laws infringe on those few who while they may be physically underage, are still mature enought to make the appropriate decision?

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 04:09pm

SAMAS wrote:I hate Legalese...

It's pretty damned useful when talking about law, though.

So what you're saying is that general Age of Consent laws infringe on those few who while they may be physically underage, are still mature enought to make the appropriate decision?

Yes, and that the infringement because of the greater interest in protecting those who can't and the discretion granted to the state in prosecuting statutory rape cases. I'm far more comfortable with this reasoning than the unsupported argument that all children are somehow unable to consent and therefore laws protecting them is rationally justified.

Rev Prez

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2004-01-27 04:12pm

revprez wrote:
SAMAS wrote:I hate Legalese...
It's pretty damned useful when talking about law, though.

And that's about it. I prefer to be direct, myself.

So what you're saying is that general Age of Consent laws infringe on those few who while they may be physically underage, are still mature enought to make the appropriate decision?
Yes, and that the infringement because of the greater interest in protecting those who can't and the discretion granted to the state in prosecuting statutory rape cases. I'm far more comfortable with this reasoning than the unsupported argument that all children are somehow unable to consent and therefore laws protecting them is rationally justified.

Rev Prez

[/quote]

There are points for and against your stance, and most of them are rather valid.

That said, I thought Statuatory Rape could only be charged if only one partner was underage, rather than both?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-27 04:13pm

revprez wrote:
SAMAS wrote:I hate Legalese...
It's pretty damned useful when talking about law, though.

Only when you want to be intentionally vague or confuse others.

Plain English is perfectly suitable discussing legal matters, as none of us are layers in a courtroom.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 04:16pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Only when you want to be intentionally vague or confuse others.

I disagree. Legalese is just being precise.

Plain English is perfectly suitable discussing legal matters, as none of us are layers in a courtroom.

How is Legalese not plain English?

Rev Prez

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-01-27 04:17pm

Stravo wrote: 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.

Nothing "special" in yer hotdogs, Strav. It's just the difference between
a bunch of people growing up essentially deprived of what a growing body
needs to grow, and a bunch of people literally drowning in Vitamins, and
all the yummy goodness that a body needs.

As far back as WWI, American conscript troops were taller,
and bigger than their european counterparts, because over here,
food has always been cheap - conscious national policy.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-27 04:17pm

So, to clarify, you want an objective standard (age) replaced with a subjective standard (maturity) implemented in Statuatory Rape cases? Do you realise how difficult that would be to implement, taking into account the fcat that psychology is at best an imprecise science?

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-01-27 04:17pm

revprez wrote:How is Legalese not plain English?

Rev Prez

Embellished != plain.

Clear enough?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-27 04:18pm

Legalese is far from being precise, it is overly worded and only serves to complicate matters.

Legalese is not Plain English because what I am writing right now is PE. In legalese, it would be about four times as long, and require several readings.

My sister is a lawyer, and I've seen her textbooks and I've read contracts. Legalese is a nightmare.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 04:19pm

SAMAS wrote:That said, I thought Statuatory Rape could only be charged if only one partner was underage, rather than both?

And I agree in general (note that I point to discretion available the prosecutor to make exceptions). My point is that if we arrive at statutory rape law based on the assertion that all children are unable to make mature decisions, someone will raise an objection with disturbing implications. I don't have the stomach for that path, so I'll revert this one.

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 04:21pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Legalese is far from being precise, it is overly worded and only serves to complicate matters.

It can be if it is wordier than necessary to articulate a point.

Legalese is not Plain English because what I am writing right now is PE. In legalese, it would be about four times as long, and require several readings.

Are you suggesting this point is equally as complex as mine? To assert that Legalese is not Plain English because you believe Legalese to be overly wordy is hardly comparable to my argument for a different method of deriving statutory rape law.

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 04:22pm

Crayz9000 wrote:
revprez wrote:How is Legalese not plain English?

Rev Prez
Embellished != plain.

Clear enough?

Sure, but I'm not sure how I've embellished my point.

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 04:23pm

The Aliens wrote:So, to clarify, you want an objective standard (age) replaced with a subjective standard (maturity) implemented in Statuatory Rape cases? Do you realise how difficult that would be to implement, taking into account the fcat that psychology is at best an imprecise science?

No, my point is that it is too difficult to assess maturity precisely because it is such a subjective measure, so we should arbitrarily set an age and permit prosecutors the discretion to make exceptions.

Rev Prez

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-01-27 04:25pm

revprez wrote:Sure, but I'm not sure how I've embellished my point.

Clear as mud, I see.

I was saying that legalese is embellished English, which is not the same as plain English. Legalese involves the use of uncommon, overly long and often vaguely defined words to accomplish whatever purpose the lawyer wants. Its goal is not precision; its goal is to give the lawyer an advantage in the courtroom.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2004-01-27 04:26pm

No, my point is that it is too difficult to assess maturity precisely because it is such a subjective measure, so we should arbitrarily set an age and permit prosecutors the discretion to make exceptions.

Not unreasonable, as long as those excetions are ver few and far between and used only in extreme circumstances.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-27 04:27pm

What kind of exceptions?

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 04:32pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:What kind of exceptions?

If someone legally reaches adulthood at 17, his or her partner of two years is a year younger, the relationship is not abusive, and there is no explicit law to draw a distinction for this example, the prosecutor can choose not to pursue the case.

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 04:36pm

Crayz9000 wrote:Clear as mud, I see.

I was saying that legalese is embellished English, which is not the same as plain English. Legalese involves the use of uncommon, overly long and often vaguely defined words to accomplish whatever purpose the lawyer wants.

"Vaguely defined words?" It seems to me that the definition of every term thrown around in the courtroom is up for scrutiny. And how are legalese words overly long and uncommon?

Its goal is not precision; its goal is to give the lawyer an advantage in the courtroom.

False dilemma. Precision is exactly the sort of an advantage a lawyer seeks in examination of defense of tesimony that could be construed as perjurious.

Rev Prez

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-01-27 04:37pm

revprez wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:What kind of exceptions?
If someone legally reaches adulthood at 17, his or her partner of two years is a year younger, the relationship is not abusive, and there is no explicit law to draw a distinction for this example, the prosecutor can choose not to pursue the case.

Rev Prez

in that case it's not a subjective measure, because if they legally reach adulthood at 17, it's on the books and therefore can't be used as an exception.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-01-27 04:39pm

Stravo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
His Divine Shadow wrote: 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.

No shit, we use growth hormone on the cows, which is a steriod that doesn't have negative effects on testoserone levels.

Fortunatly the levels in US agrobusiness are much lower then those allowed in Mexico or Lands south of that. Or places where the US has decided to give long term food aid too. (poor africa and former soviet empire)

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-27 04:41pm

Darth_Zod wrote:in that case it's not a subjective measure, because if they legally reach adulthood at 17, it's on the books and therefore can't be used as an exception.

Only one partner is of legal age. And why isn't it an exception? The prosecutor doesn't have to pursue the case.

Rev Prez

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-01-27 04:45pm

just because the prosecutor can choose not to persue the case doesn't mean they wouldn't. it depends upon the decision of the minor's parents whether or not they would want persecution, the underaged individual involved has no say in the matter legally.