that is one of the most ridiculous things I think I've ever seen someone say. Young people can't be trusted to take their medications regularly, which is what helps people with HIV remain healthy for so long now.
My point was that because of the physical vigor of the young, they are able to resist both initial infection and the deleterious symptoms of full blown AIDS to a greater extent than those not possessing such qualities.
It is a myth which is why I don't make my daughter attend church. I find most to be filled with hypocrites and liars. Do as I say not as I do types.
In some regards. In other regards, I am a former Christian Reconstructionist, so I can profess no hypocrisy on at least one ground.
what do you consider a young adult? I do agree that the drinking age should be 18. But other than that what contraints do you see hindering these "young adults?
I would say that I regard biological adults, (meaning those who have experienced menarche or spermarche), under the age of 30 or 35 as young adults. I see hindrances placed upon them in the form of age restrictions, such as the voting age, the drinking age, the driving age, the working age, the age at which one can opt to leave school, etc.
do you even take into account that life expectancy has increased dramatically even in the last 30 or so years? Modern medicine makes it to where people don't have to live their entire lives in a nano-second. My grandmother married at 13 and had my mother at 14. She ended up having to have a hysterectomy at 21 because her body had not sufficiently matured enough to bear a child and doing so damaged her reproductive organs. My mother was an only child because of it. Babies shouldn't be having babies!
Babies are physically incapable of having babies, so your reference is to young women. Regarding your point about life expectancy, I would again ask if you would be in favor of extending the age of majority to 30 should the average human lifespan be extended to 150 through scientific advancements. I would then point out that my argument is not a dogmatic opposite of your own. You simply claim that young adolescents should not have children at all, but I do not claim that older adults should not have children, despite the fact that physical conditions similar to the one you mentioned can afflict older mothers. I claim that because of the widely varying circumstances and experiences of the mass array of individuals that constitute humanity, no set standard or age restriction for childbearing will suffice.
Next, your claim that "babies should not be having babies" seems directly opposite to the prospect of permitting adolescents to obtain abortions, since it seems as though that is what would directly prevent them from having babies. But I digress.
I think it likely that you will refer to the "economic circumstances" of teenage parenthood, which is itself a somewhat overhyped phenomenon. A
sociological analysis of Hotz et al. is most prominently characterized by a quotation from the study.
Our results suggest that much of the “concern” that has been registered regarding teenage childbearing is misplaced, at least based on its consequences for the subsequent educational and economic attainment of teen mothers. In particular, our estimates imply that the “poor” outcomes attained by such women cannot be attributed, in a causal sense, primarily to their decision to begin their childbearing at an early age. Rather, it appears that these outcomes are more the result of social and economic circumstances than they are the result of the early childbearing of these women. Furthermore, our estimates suggest that simply delaying their childbearing would not greatly enhance their educational attainment or subsequent earnings or affect their family structure… For most outcomes, the adverse consequences of early childbearing are short-lived. For annual hours of work and earnings, we find that a teen mother would have lower levels of each at older ages if they had delayed their childbearing (emphasis mine).
Regardless, to the extent that adolescent women are incapable of providing for their children, (and again, this trend appears to be more closely related with poverty than with age), it is due to their economic disenfranchisement through child labor and compulsory schooling laws, and would be reversed were those restrictions not present.
are you saying that a 12, 13 or 14 year old is emotionally mature enough to take responsibility for keeping themselves safe from diseases? do they have the willingness to go to the doctor for regular check-ups which is what you do when you become sexually active? do they have the emotional stability to understand that having sex with someone doesn't guarantee you that they'll like you, that sometimes people just want to have sex? are they capable of dealing with that kind of rejection? Do you know ANYTHING about adolescents other than what you remember when you were one? I remember at that age I would've been devestated to sleep with a guy and have him dump me. Adults feel the same way, imagine a child who cries if their friends don't like their new haircut or clothes?
I have posted studies indicating that young adolescents possess the capacity to offer informed consent to medical treatment. Is there any rational criticism of these studies that you are prepared to offer? I think the perspective you mention is true for wider society, not just adolescents. In fact, I'd say that due to sociobiological realities combined with an anti-sex culture, there is a heavy male/female divide when it comes to such activities, since females are more biologically prone to conceptualize sexual contact as romantic and emotional, and males more biologically prone to conceptualize it as physical. It's related to the evolutionary reality that males were intended to "spread their seed" as far and wide as possible, and females were intended to be choosy about sex partners so as to select one who could defend them during nine months of pregnancy and a later period of nursing. But there is also an element in our culture, (which we can be grateful to Christianity for), that influences another view of sexual contact as immoral if outside of marital relations, and that impacts societal perspectives of sex negatively.
you're trying to argue that CHILDREN should be looked upon as sexually responsible creatures and therefore should be allowed the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. Your argument is flawed insomuch as unless these same children are willing and able to go get jobs and support themselves and whatever offspring they may produce then they shouldn't be having sex!
I don't see that you have much direct evidence that adolescents are unwilling to obtain employment; I regard them as being unable to do so because they are afflicted by direct state enfranchisement in the form of child labor and compulsory schooling laws, coupled with the fact that they do not possess the legal rights to sign contracts or own property. In fact, I covered these issues in the long post I made earlier in this thread.
Apparently you're an advocate for child sex... I find that disturbing on several levels I must say
If you consider biologically (and mentally, as evidenced by the studies that I provided) adolescents to be "children," there is little I can do to help you.
but at what age? that is the question.
I don't regard there as being any fixed age at which individuals can be assumed to be competent, which is why I oppose specific age restrictions, due to their arbitrariness.
used to be childred HAD to grow up fast because their family needed them to help work and support the family. With technology and with advancements that's no longer necessary in most communities. America is unique in that we have the ability to give our children the GIFT of their youth....many countries don't have that but I venture to guess they would if they could.
Some may regard "childhood" as a gift. Some may not. The critical element here is that, again, you take a zealously dogmatic view of childhood, while I take a more fluid one. It may help to conceptualize childhood as a walled and gated garden. Some may enjoy the tranquility of the garden, and have no desire to leave there. But others may regard it as a desolate prison, and yearn to escape. Claiming that all persons are in one group or another is foolish.
Could children be taught to be ready for sex? sure....just look in Cambodia where the child sex market is booming. Is that a future that holds any kind of promise for young people? Not IMO.
That's a rather offensive comparison, in my opinion. Prostitutes in extremely destitute countries are essentially wage slaves, as are most workers in destitute countries. The nature of wage slavery involves a coercion directly opposed to the variety of liberty that I recommend that youth possess, not only in sexual matters, but in matters of voting, substance use, driving, schooling, working, etc.
I see nothing wrong with allowing children to be children for longer. I'm quite happy that my 14 year old isn't experimenting with sex at this point. She happens to be wise enough to know that she's not ready for sex. There is no "magic" number when someone wakes up and is suddenly mature enough to have sex and be able to handle all the emotional ramifications that go along with it. Everyone comes to that point in their own time....some are 15 or 16 others are in their 20s. The key is encouraging people to WAIT for that to happen and not just rushing in to get laid and get it over with.
I have already addressed the issue of emotional ramifications by noting that for a large part, they are social constructs. You really haven't provided any evidence to the contrary, to be honest.
pre-teens and teens should be being taught that sex isn't casual and that they shouldn't just do it to do it. It's not a game.
Again, sex can be compared to a drug in that its nature as fluid. Some drug users may use drugs merely for recreational purposes, while others will use them for religious purposes, as part of a sacred ritual. Similarly, some may see sex as casual, while others will attach the deeply emotional element that you attach to it. But to declare it to be one or the other and nothing else is unacceptably dogmatic.
More than that, I regard your remarks toward Amanda as being condescending, patronizing, and offensive. I do not deny that the majority of parents are not malevolent, dictatorial entities seeking to oppress their children. On the contrary, most parents obviously have good intentions and only wish the best for their children. But some of the worst acts in human history were committed with good intentions, and it is my belief that most parents unwittingly treat their offspring with a lack of dignity and respect. But asserting that Amanda would come to accept her parents' treatment of her is a baseless assumption tied to a crude stereotype. Perhaps you forgave your parents for what you once perceived as foul treatment. And perhaps most others did. But to assume that Amanda would, and that her perspective is merely clouded by her age, is an unjust stereotype. If I asserted that you merely viewed sexual contact as deeply emotional merely by virtue of being female, since females conceptualize sexual contact as being emotional and romantic, while males conceptualize it in physical terms, this would be a similarly unjust stereotype.
) I just think I have some knowledge of a specific topic that I've learned from studying it, that anyone else could learn just as easily. By the same token, I know little about auto mechanics. (Though I'm trying to learn). It's an extremely complex topic, but it doesn't reflect genius ability so much as it reflects a person's specific study of that topic. I think it's possible for you to say everything I've said and more.
