|
|
Posted by Anybody on 10/09/06 05:56
In article <slrneijjvb.t5f.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Anybody wrote on [Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:34:46 +1300]:
> > In article <slrneij612.mi7.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>, Justin
> > <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Anybody wrote on [Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:01:05 +1300]:
> >> > In article <slrneiipi7.mi7.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>, Justin
> >> > <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Anybody wrote on [Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:20:32 +1300]:
> >> >> > In article <slrneiidh7.mi7.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>, Justin
> >> >> > <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Anybody wrote on [Sun, 08 Oct 2006 16:32:03 +1300]:
> >> >> >> > In article <9_KdnS5u0KJdybXYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@got.net>, "Odinn"
> >> >> >> > <odinn_storm@fastmail.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Pay special attention to the last line of the story!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-10-06-castle-hughes-pregn
> >> >> >> >> ant_x.htm?csp=27
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And she's only 16 years old too ... looks like yet another child
> >> >> >> > actor
> >> >> >> > is going strange under the pressure. :-\
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's so strange for 16 year olds to fuck.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Depends on your definition of "strange".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you mean "rare" than unfortunately it's no where near as rare as it
> >> >> > should be. You can thank moronic "role models" like Britney Spears and
> >> >> > the over-abundance of soft-porn in entertainment these days for that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you mean "idiotic", then yes it is idiotic, especially when a girl
> >> >> > of 16 ends up with a baby ... babies should not be having babies of
> >> >> > their own. It's usually a sign of something wrong in either their
> >> >> > ubringing or their mental health.
> >> >>
> >> >> For most of history it was the NORM for girls of 14-16 to have children.
> >> >
> >> > True, but that doesn't mean it was or is sensible or the "right thing".
> >> >
> >> > In many places 16 isn't considered old enough to drink alcohol, vote,
> >> > drive a car, or have sex ... it can't even remotely be considered a
> >> > sensible age to have a baby or raise a child.
> >>
> >> With a lot of people 26 is too young to be sensible enough to procreate.
> >
> > True, but at least legally they are considered adults so are
> > supposedly more sensible ... unfortunately reality rarely matches the
> > ideal. :-(
>
> In other words, old enough is not based on age alone.
True again, but it's EXTREMELY unlikely that a 16 year old is a
sensible age to have a baby. As I said, in many places they aren't even
considered "adults" at that age. You have to draw the common sense line
somewhere - it's technically possible for girls as young as 10 or
younger to have a baby, but common sense would tell most people that
it's a stupid idea.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|