Shocking article. It’s shocking and appalling. But it probably won’t pass, check out our discussion at DMB — Sex at age 12 okay under law change. My comments are on the third page, under nick “rin.”
Shocking article. It’s shocking and appalling. But it probably won’t pass, check out our discussion at DMB — Sex at age 12 okay under law change. My comments are on the third page, under nick “rin.”
Laws-morality is a funny issue. Is it the existence of a law that implies the morality or the adherance to that law? Clearly, morality of a society exists in how the law is interpreted (words e.g. laws, do not carry a morality, actions do).
If people have sex at 12, regardless of reason, and people stand back and let things happen, it implies that the society thinks it is morally acceptable. Changing the law without changing that (in)action means nothing.
I find the argument that “the gov’t should not give people the opportunity to screw up” to be contrary to the liberal-democratic principle. I have the right to screw up my life if I want to. What about the children? Abortion is a last resort, and so is adoption. Sucks for the mother but they’ll learn about consequences. Hard cheese, your life sucks.
Anyway, laws aren’t the problem; the problem is education. I’m not a fan of teen pregnancy but I’m even less of a fan of ineffectual laws and sanctions.
Oh, and I want to hang those forum designers. Pink text on a white background is bad enough but it made my eyes burn to read that at 3:30 am in a dark room.
Un. Be. Lieveable.