Boy of 11 is a father

[zelda2fanboy]

Wait they are charging $600 for an abortion these days? That is absolutely outragous. Who the hell would pay $600 for an abortion when you can get a homeless guy off the street to punch you in the gut a few times for a bottle of gin.

Gin? Who do think I am? Bill Gates? Bottle of mouthwash, sir. Don't want them getting cocky. Give them something fancy like gin and then they'll just be punching you in the gut whenever you walk by.

 

[Kopikatsu]

It does take away from this argument that minors are not sexual beings which is put out lots of places as the reason for the consent laws being where they are. I am in no way advocating for changes or the idea that older people with minors is anything but wrong. It just takes a bit of the air out if that argument when minors are obviously not as sexless as people like to think. Just saying...

I'm not quite sure why the mother isn't being charged with statutory rape, or is 11 & 15 actually legal in the UK?

Other than that, its a "so what" story.

Them both being minors means that Romeo and Juliette exceptions come into force. The same thing that stops a 16 year old (above UK age of consent) being in trouble for being intimate with his week younger 15 year old (normally illegal) girlfriend. But 15 to 11 is a big gap...

Sex is a means of reproduction. The sole means of reproduction for most/all mammals. Reproduction is the only reason that humans are capable of having sex in the first place.

If you aren't physically/emotionally/financially capable of having a child, and then raising that child in relative comfort, then you shouldn't be having sex.

See how that works?

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Sex is a means of reproduction. The sole means of reproduction for most/all mammals. Reproduction is the only reason that humans are capable of having sex in the first place.

If you aren't physically/emotionally/financially capable of having a child, and then raising that child in relative comfort, then you shouldn't be having sex.

See how that works?

Kind of a cold outlook, don't you think? I'm merely speaking from the perspective of a 24, soon to be 25 year old who has never had sex himself. I've heard this basic idea repeated from a few other people. I don't mean to pry and you absolutely do not have to answer, but have you had sex? If you have, are you "physically/emotionally/financially capable of having a child?"

In theory, your idea makes a lot of sense, but in practice it is not as cut and dry as you think it is. This is because being a virgin for this long period of time has made me crazy. It dominates every thought. Ruins every day. I can't even calculate how many years of depression not getting laid has supplied me with and I'm just now getting to a point where I'm okay with it. However, there are hundreds of poor decisions I would still make at this point if it even had a chance of getting something to happen. So when I hear someone else (someone who probably has actually had sex) talk about all the ways one shouldn't do it, up to and including ideas of self imposed punishment and consequences, it perplexes me a little bit. In this country and at this time, no woman has to have a child if she doesn't want to. Condoms are readily available. Risk can be minimized a lot. But still, it's just abstinence or child? I don't think it works that way, but as I said, I wouldn't know.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Sex is a means of reproduction. The sole means of reproduction for most/all mammals. Reproduction is the only reason that humans are capable of having sex in the first place.

If you aren't physically/emotionally/financially capable of having a child, and then raising that child in relative comfort, then you shouldn't be having sex.

See how that works?

Kind of a cold outlook, don't you think? I'm merely speaking from the perspective of a 24, soon to be 25 year old who has never had sex himself. I've heard this basic idea repeated from a few other people. I don't mean to pry and you absolutely do not have to answer, but have you had sex? If you have, are you "physically/emotionally/financially capable of having a child?"

In theory, your idea makes a lot of sense, but in practice it is not as cut and dry as you think it is. This is because being a virgin for this long period of time has made me crazy. It dominates every thought. Ruins every day. I can't even calculate how many years of depression not getting laid has supplied me with and I'm just now getting to a point where I'm okay with it. However, there are hundreds of poor decisions I would still make at this point if it even had a chance of getting something to happen. So when I hear someone else (someone who probably has actually had sex) talk about all the ways one shouldn't do it, up to and including ideas of self imposed punishment and consequences, it perplexes me a little bit. In this country and at this time, no woman has to have a child if she doesn't want to. Condoms are readily available. Risk can be minimized a lot. But still, it's just abstinence or child? I don't think it works that way, but as I said, I wouldn't know.

I've never had sex specifically because I'm none of those things. (Physically/emotionally/financially capable). A hypocrite is one thing that I am not.

Are you depressed about not having sex, or are you just depressed that you don't have a significant other who loves you enough to go that far with you? Because there is a difference between the two. ('Course, you could be both.) Anywho, I'm only 20, but I've never really obsessed over sex before. Maybe it'll come in a few years. Probably not. Who knows?

Anywho mk.2, I didn't say 'abstinence or child'. While I do have an issue with contraceptives (Because the purpose of sex is reproduction. That much is inarguable.), that isn't to say they have no purpose and should never be used. However, the physically/emotionally/financially capable thing comes into play. If you aren't willing and capable of taking responsibility for the potential consequences for an action (Sex, in this case), then you shouldn't be doing that action.

Edit: Also, unwanted pregnancies generally leads to people going on the dole. (Or get a government funded abortion. Or the kid ending up in an orphanage which is, again, paid for by government.)

Basically, people having sex without regard for the consequences literally costs everyone money. Mainly in the form of taxes. Which I take issue with. Major issue. I shouldn't have to pay because other people are being asshats.

Edit 2: If being a virgin bothers you that much (And it's just not having sex that bothers you), you can just like...pay for sex.

 

[MrLlamaLlama]

Well done, that news story is from 1997.

I also attended Sharnbrook Upper school, the same as the parents in the article, but it makes the mother around 6 years older than me.

 

[Greatjusticeman]

I wonder where they are now since it's 2011 and that article was published in 1997.

Hmm.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I've never had sex specifically because I'm none of those things. (Physically/emotionally/financially capable). A hypocrite is one thing that I am not.

Are you depressed about not having sex, or are you just depressed that you don't have a significant other who loves you enough to go that far with you? Because there is a difference between the two. ('Course, you could be both.) Anywho, I'm only 20, but I've never really obsessed over sex before. Maybe it'll come in a few years. Probably not. Who knows?

Anywho mk.2, I didn't say 'abstinence or child'. While I do have an issue with contraceptives (Because the purpose of sex is reproduction. That much is inarguable.), that isn't to say they have no purpose and should never be used. However, the physically/emotionally/financially capable thing goes into play. If you aren't willing and capable of taking responsibility for the potential consequences for an action (Sex, in this case), then you shouldn't be doing that action.

Edit: Also, unwanted pregnancies generally leads to people going on the dole. (Or get a government funded abortion. Or the kid ending up in an orphanage which is, again, paid for by government.)

Basically, people having sex without regard for the consequences literally costs everyone money. Mainly in the form of taxes. Which I take issue with. Major issue. I shouldn't have to pay because other people are being asshats.

Edit 2: If being a virgin bothers you that much (And it's just not having sex that bothers you), you can just like...pay for sex.

The depression didn't really hit me hard until about age 21, when it suddenly dawned on me the amount of relationships, opportunities, and general "joy" had passed me by over the years. In the US, I don't think there is such a thing as "government funded abortion" unless you get paychecks from the government for some other reason and then choose to use the money on that. I suppose if cops or school teachers get abortions, it's technically a "government funded abortion" since their paycheck came from the government. Also, in reference to "edit 2" why would anyone want a prostitute if the "only" purpose for sex was reproduction? Maybe it is on an evolutionary standpoint, but not from a real life one. I mean on that basis, what is the point of other reproductively transferred conditions? What's the purpose of cancer? The flu? Alzheimers? Parkinsons? Down syndrome?

I'm just saying that not everything (or anything) has an inherent meaning or purpose attached to it. The only one that comes to mind is sickle cell anemia a genetic mutation designed to ward off malaria, with the only side effect being that it kills you eventually. Even reproduction is not always an instantaneous process. Some people try for years. My coworker knocked up his gf after having ill-advised unprotected sex for months. (By the way, now about 2/3 of his paycheck is legally out the window for the next 20 years.) I'm just trying to relate that complex human biological functions are not thought out or are particularly efficient, so to assume that something is "only" for something is a slightly shaky assertion.

And yes, I would rather have both, but for awhile I would have been willing to pay for it had I known where to go and had the money.

 

[m3nt1a]

Yes, some 11 year old males are capable of impregnating people. What's the big deal? I think it's hilarious that a news website is reporting on a 15 year old girls sex life. Must be a slow news day.

EDIT: OMFG as the other posters said it's from 1997. I need to stop taking ativan and talking shit on the internet.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I'm not quite sure why the mother isn't being charged with statutory rape, or is 11 & 15 actually legal in the UK?

Other than that, its a "so what" story.

16 is age of consent. but women can't statutorily rape guys here, because fuck gender equality.

Well, I kinda think the boy loses any right he may or may not have had to cry rape when he deliberately lied to the girl in question about his age in order to get her into bed.

Is it wrong that a part of me is kinda impressed? I mean, I sure as hell couldn't have passed myself off as 15 in order to get laid when I was 11.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I've never had sex specifically because I'm none of those things. (Physically/emotionally/financially capable). A hypocrite is one thing that I am not.

Are you depressed about not having sex, or are you just depressed that you don't have a significant other who loves you enough to go that far with you? Because there is a difference between the two. ('Course, you could be both.) Anywho, I'm only 20, but I've never really obsessed over sex before. Maybe it'll come in a few years. Probably not. Who knows?

Anywho mk.2, I didn't say 'abstinence or child'. While I do have an issue with contraceptives (Because the purpose of sex is reproduction. That much is inarguable.), that isn't to say they have no purpose and should never be used. However, the physically/emotionally/financially capable thing goes into play. If you aren't willing and capable of taking responsibility for the potential consequences for an action (Sex, in this case), then you shouldn't be doing that action.

Edit: Also, unwanted pregnancies generally leads to people going on the dole. (Or get a government funded abortion. Or the kid ending up in an orphanage which is, again, paid for by government.)

Basically, people having sex without regard for the consequences literally costs everyone money. Mainly in the form of taxes. Which I take issue with. Major issue. I shouldn't have to pay because other people are being asshats.

Edit 2: If being a virgin bothers you that much (And it's just not having sex that bothers you), you can just like...pay for sex.

The depression didn't really hit me hard until about age 21, when it suddenly dawned on me the amount of relationships, opportunities, and general "joy" had passed me by over the years. In the US, I don't think there is such a thing as "government funded abortion" unless you get paychecks from the government for some other reason and then choose to use the money on that. I suppose if cops or school teachers get abortions, it's technically a "government funded abortion" since their paycheck came from the government. Also, in reference to "edit 2" why would anyone want a prostitute if the "only" purpose for sex was reproduction? Maybe it is on an evolutionary standpoint, but not from a real life one. I mean on that basis, what is the point of other reproductively transferred conditions? What's the purpose of cancer? The flu? Alzheimers? Parkinsons? Down syndrome?

I'm just saying that not everything (or anything) has an inherent meaning or purpose attached to it. The only one that comes to mind is sickle cell anemia a genetic mutation designed to ward off malaria, with the only side effect being that it kills you eventually. Even reproduction is not always an instantaneous process. Some people try for years. My coworker knocked up his gf after having ill-advised unprotected sex for months. (By the way, now about 2/3 of his paycheck is legally out the window for the next 20 years.) I'm just trying to relate that complex human biological functions are not thought out or are particularly efficient, so to assume that something is "only" for something is a slightly shaky assertion.

And yes, I would rather have both, but for awhile I would have been willing to pay for it had I known where to go and had the money.

A bill was passed a while ago that allows government funding for abortion clinics. http://www.lifenews.com/2010/07/13/nat-6531/

Anyway...the reason that sex is pleasurable is because it's one of the (many) ways that the human mind manipulates the body. The end result is supposed to be that you have sex as much as possible to have the greatest amount of children possible. It was also necessary because back in the days before nice sterile hospital rooms, morality rate of children was extremely high. Having more children ensured that at least some of them would survive. That's the entire purpose of life. To pass on your genes, if they're good. If they aren't good, then generally you died. Of course, modern medicine has screwed up the natural order of things, but that's getting off topic.

Cancer serves as a softcap for age. I'm too tired to go through the entire process of how cancer forms right now, but basically, the longer you live the higher your chance of developing cancer is. Cancer has no specific purpose because it's caused by a mutation. That goes for those other diseases as well. They're genetic diseases caused by mutations of...well...genes. Basically, it means that evolution said 'Fuck you' and condemned them to death. (Actually, it just means that they were unlucky and got a malicious mutation instead of a beneficial one. But shit happens.) The reason that these diseases are prevalent is because, as I said, modern medicine keeps people with genetic diseases long enough for them to reproduce. People need to die. Death is a vital part of life.

Sidenote: The flu is just caused by a virus. Virus are rogue protein that carry around RNA that forces the synthesis of DNA. Since it's supposed to go DNA > RNA > Protein; RNA creating DNA causes that DNA to be full of errors. Once that DNA infects a cell and starts producing RNA (Which then goes on to infect more cells), you get sick. I honestly couldn't tell you where Viruses come from, but googling 'Where do Viruses come from?' would probably answer that question.

Sex's only biological function is reproduction. I mean...it doesn't do anything else. It feels good, yes, but so does eating and expelling waste. (Not in the same way, of course). They're ranked. Eating is a mildly important function, so it only feels mildly good. (You must eat to survive, yes, but you can go without food for a really long time). Sex is literally the most important biological function, so it stands to reason that it feels the best. (The biological purpose of life is to pass down your genes in order to benefit your species as a whole. The philosophical purpose of life can be argued, but the biological purpose is pretty set in stone.)

 

[zelda2fanboy]

A bill was passed a while ago that allows government funding for abortion clinics. http://www.lifenews.com/2010/07/13/nat-6531/

Anyway...the reason that sex is pleasurable is because it's one of the (many) ways that the human mind manipulates the body. The end result is supposed to be that you have sex as much as possible to have the greatest amount of children possible. It was also necessary because back in the days before nice sterile hospital rooms, morality rate of children was extremely high. Having more children ensured that at least some of them would survive. That's the entire purpose of life. To pass on your genes, if they're good. If they aren't good, then generally you died. Of course, modern medicine has screwed up the natural order of things, but that's getting off topic.

Cancer serves as a softcap for age. I'm too tired to go through the entire process of how cancer forms right now, but basically, the longer you live the higher your chance of developing cancer is. Cancer has no specific purpose because it's caused by a mutation. That goes for those other diseases as well. They're genetic diseases caused by mutations of...well...genes. Basically, it means that evolution said 'Fuck you' and condemned them to death. (Actually, it just means that they were unlucky and got a malicious mutation instead of a beneficial one. But shit happens.) The reason that these diseases are prevalent is because, as I said, modern medicine keeps people with genetic diseases long enough for them to reproduce. People need to die. Death is a vital part of life.
)

Always consider your sources. That's a pro life website and I can't find that story anywhere else. Here's a different opinion on the matter. http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion
So no, they don't really fund abortions in the situation you were describing, at least i don't think so. Also, what about childhood leukemia? That's not a natural stop gap for age. Neither is AIDS, polio, or any number of maladies that have killed little kids all over the world. Just consider how often millions of human sperm enter a vagina (an inherently inhospitable place for sperm to be in) and completely fail to connect to an egg, every single second.

People pass on crappy genes all day long and that's not just thanks to medicine. There is no "natural order of things" and if there is, modern medicine would count as being a part of it. Sorry, but your ideas are beginning to sound not entirely unlike eugenics.

 

[Kopikatsu]

A bill was passed a while ago that allows government funding for abortion clinics. http://www.lifenews.com/2010/07/13/nat-6531/

Anyway...the reason that sex is pleasurable is because it's one of the (many) ways that the human mind manipulates the body. The end result is supposed to be that you have sex as much as possible to have the greatest amount of children possible. It was also necessary because back in the days before nice sterile hospital rooms, morality rate of children was extremely high. Having more children ensured that at least some of them would survive. That's the entire purpose of life. To pass on your genes, if they're good. If they aren't good, then generally you died. Of course, modern medicine has screwed up the natural order of things, but that's getting off topic.

Cancer serves as a softcap for age. I'm too tired to go through the entire process of how cancer forms right now, but basically, the longer you live the higher your chance of developing cancer is. Cancer has no specific purpose because it's caused by a mutation. That goes for those other diseases as well. They're genetic diseases caused by mutations of...well...genes. Basically, it means that evolution said 'Fuck you' and condemned them to death. (Actually, it just means that they were unlucky and got a malicious mutation instead of a beneficial one. But shit happens.) The reason that these diseases are prevalent is because, as I said, modern medicine keeps people with genetic diseases long enough for them to reproduce. People need to die. Death is a vital part of life.
)

Always consider your sources. That's a pro life website and I can't find that story anywhere else. Here's a different opinion on the matter. http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion
So no, they don't really fund abortions in the situation you were describing, at least i don't think so. Also, what about childhood leukemia? That's not a natural stop gap for age. Neither is AIDS, polio, or any number of maladies that have killed little kids all over the world. Just consider how often millions of human sperm enter a vagina (an inherently inhospitable place for sperm to be in) and completely fail to connect to an egg, every single second.

People pass on crappy genes all day long and that's not just thanks to medicine. There is no "natural order of things" and if there is, modern medicine would count as being a part of it. Sorry, but your ideas are beginning to sound not entirely unlike eugenics.

It should, because it is eugenics by natural selection. Eugenics isn't a bad thing. (Hitler's belief fell under the term Eugenics, yes, but Eugenics isn't 'KILL EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T BLONDE HAIRED AND BLUE EYED'. To the dictionary!

Noun:
The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics

). Evolution takes care of that naturally.

Also...I never said that little kids were immune to death? Actually, I said that they die all the time. Death is a part of life. It's something you accept and move on.

I said 'People with bad genes generally died off before the advent of medicine'. Which is true. Hemophiliac? You died...almost immediately after birth. Allergy to water? You died almost immediately after birth. And so on and so forth.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

It should, because it is eugenics by natural selection. Eugenics isn't a bad thing. (Hitler's belief fell under the term Eugenics, yes, but Eugenics isn't 'KILL EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T BLONDE HAIRED AND BLUE EYED'. To the dictionary!

Noun:
The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics

). Evolution takes care of that naturally.

Also...I never said that little kids were immune to death? Actually, I said that they die all the time. Death is a part of life. It's something you accept and move on.

I said 'People with bad genes generally died off before the advent of medicine'. Which is true. Hemophiliac? You died...almost immediately after birth. Allergy to water? You died almost immediately after birth. And so on and so forth.

Yes, but even after millions of years of untampered-with pure biological evolution, we still have hemophilia. I don't think evolution takes care of the "improving a human population" part particularly well. It's sort of why I'm atheist, so I don't have to lay all of these inconsistencies on a personified creator. Shit happens, as you said.

 

[Fiad]

My only question is this, why is this newsworthy? So what, some kids had a kid. Is it right? No. Should their parents sit them down and have a long talk? Yes. Should everyone worldwide hear about this? Hell no.

 

[Jake Lewis Clayton]

His life is screwed at 11. That is just sad.

What kind of court is going to force an 11 year old to pay alimony?

What, are they going to take 40% of his pocket-money?!?

Just a few things. 1 this was 14 years ago this story, the girl is now married and the boy is in jail (I think he's still there).

Unlike american law, if a boy suffers a statutory rape he is not responsible for the child which results from any sex (unless he willingly puts his name on the birth certificate as the father). Infact I think he would have even of had a case for forcing an abortion, had it have been his families and his wish.


Also (not directed at you treblaine) in the uk, sex with someone under 16 (while below the age of 18) is sex with a minor, over 18 and sex with anyone under 16 is another offence which generally classes as a first sexual offence (Carries the same punishment as assault on a minor, which generally isn't jail time)

Anyone having sex with someone under the age of 13 is guilty of statutory rape here though, so the 15 year old girl was very lucky to not have been charged and convicted. But the courts never charge women with rape, unless they are teachers.

Double standards much.

 

[Kopikatsu]

It should, because it is eugenics by natural selection. Eugenics isn't a bad thing. (Hitler's belief fell under the term Eugenics, yes, but Eugenics isn't 'KILL EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T BLONDE HAIRED AND BLUE EYED'. To the dictionary!

Noun:
The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics

). Evolution takes care of that naturally.

Also...I never said that little kids were immune to death? Actually, I said that they die all the time. Death is a part of life. It's something you accept and move on.

I said 'People with bad genes generally died off before the advent of medicine'. Which is true. Hemophiliac? You died...almost immediately after birth. Allergy to water? You died almost immediately after birth. And so on and so forth.

Yes, but even after millions of years of untampered-with pure biological evolution, we still have hemophilia. I don't think evolution takes care of the "improving a human population" part particularly well. It's sort of why I'm atheist, so I don't have to lay all of these inconsistencies on a personified creator. Shit happens, as you said.

That's because of these fun things called recessive genes. Also, sex-linked diseases. (Which are called that because they're carried on the x-chromosome, not because they're STDs). It's possible to be a carrier for a disease but not show symptoms. That makes it significantly easier to pass it down (Since you survive and show no sign of the illness, despite being infected).

In the end, it all comes down to the RNG. And he hates everyone. (Random Number God)

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Waaaait, did i understand you correctly?
You're an atheist, so you don't believe in survival of the fittest and the natural selection?

Jah, and i'm a christ who doesn't believe in god and jesus. Makes as much sense.

 

[Goofguy]

EDIT:

Nevermind, I'm thinking of a different incident lol.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2233878.ece

Look at the pics in this article, that girl is a rapist, though I suppose the one in the OP's link is worse since she slept with an 11 year old and not a 12 year old.

Yeah, I remember reading about that when it first happened. There's something really weird about two kids posing for a picture with their own baby. Kind of unsettling, really.