Girl born in (either 2000 or)2001 gives birth. Feels old, man.
Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hatred, religion, war, or violence.
I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.
http://mhkeehn.tripod.com/trashcan.jpg
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...s/carville.jpe
For once, Carville was a man ahead of his time.
A 10 year old mother is just absurd. It's sad to see things like this happen, honestly.
Have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape
I think it's funny they used the word "mum" in the news article's title. It sounds so strange to me. Must be the norm out in AU though for them to use it like that.
Good Sir.
You just have been cought using logic.
Stop! And dont do it again.
P.S. If you just look over that poddle of water called the Atlantic, you will find this wierd land, where age of consent is lower and more circumstancial, where Sex Education starts as early as 2nd grade, where they give away free condoms in schools, where the drinking age is lower etc.
Yet they statisticaly record less teenage pregnancies, lower STD levels, more responsible youth when it comes to their bodies.
(Only exception to in Europe where the system failed miserably is Great Britain, but that country is like a scientific experiment run amok, when it comes to social policies.)
10 years old?
Maybe true but with regards to things like young mums, in england, the line is pretty well set in stone and society is divided. My ex is 16, almost 17, and when we were together her mum was wondering when I was going to stop being lazy and give her grandchildren. However in my family and end of society, kids before marriage and about the age of 25 and a job you hate, is a massive nono.
Yes there is cross over on this line but not loads of it, sadly, least not where I am.
That is just... wrong...
People who are trying to use history to make 10 year old girls giving birth seem somehow normal needs to actually pick up a history book. I know of no human society in any period of human history that routinely considers 10 year old girls to be at an appropriate age for marriage. You may be able to make a decent case for lowering the age of consent from 18, but please realise that 18 and 10 are physically and mentally very, very different. Even the ages of 13 and 10 still have a huge gap between them owing to the volatility of growth and puberty in that age.
It is true that throughout most of human history, women were having children at much younger ages than is typical in western society today. However, no one was routinely trying to impregnate 9/10 year old girls. Marriages existed to provide offspring, and 10 years old is hardly considered to be normal childbearing age by anyone. A girl may have started her periods by her 10th birthday, but in most cases it would be readily apparent that she is still developing and growing.
Besides, the economical argument doesn't even make any sense. With the medical technology (or lack thereof) of pre-modern times, giving birth at such a young age is extremely dangerous. It doesn't take much to realise that it is a bad bargain economically and emotionally to recklessly risk a young mother's life for the sake of starting to get babies a few years sooner.
In medieval Europe, the trend of young marriages was the worst amongst the nobility, because of the value of females in building political alliances or in dynastic plays for power. But even amongst the nobility, it is rare to find actual marriages (not just betrothals) to girls younger than 15 or so, much less births. Most mothers gave birth to their first child between 16 and 17, even in cases where they were married years earlier. Such dynastic pressures do not exist for the non-noble population, whose women accordingly married much later than their noble counterparts. The average age changed from one period to another and from region to region, but Middle Ages peasant women were typically marrying in their twenties. At the youngest, middle to lower class women were marrying at perhaps around 22 years old, and sometimes the norm was well into their late twenties.
Similar trends prevailed during Antiquity. In Ancient Rome upper class women also had to marry young, but still the typical age range was about 15-20. Lower class women married later, often in their twenties. In Ancient Greece, girls were typically married between 14 and 16, to guarantee that they would still be virgins. In neither society did there exist any trend of marrying girls while they were only 9 or 10, because it would have been before their age of puberty. In fact puberty really acted as the lower limit on the age of marriage. Jews had probably one of the youngest marriage ages, but even under Jewish law a girl can only be wed until after her puberty, or 12 years old. Incidentally this was carried over to church laws for Christians.
The point is, if anything history shows that it is not at all normal to be giving birth at the age of 10. It is absolutely ludicrous to try use history to argue that we shouldn't feel sadden and disturbed by this story.
This post is so ironic because what is now understood as statutory rape is one of the more "classic" types of rapes, compared to the more "modern" varieties we have now that society has by and large adopted the principle of "no means no". Back then rape was considered a big deal because it deprives another man of his property and/or it damages the girl's eligibility for marriage, so statutory rape was always considered rape, whereas for example a husband can force his wife to have sex and it wouldn't have been considered rape.
Either way statutory rape IS rape. Rape is defined as non-consensual sex, and a minor cannot legally consent, therefore any adult having sex with a 10 year old is committing rape. Just because it has a special name doesn't make it not rape in any sense.
What if the father is a ten or eleven year old boy?
It's still sad, but kids are having sex younger and younger. It was bound to happen.
But it was never healthy.
How many of those young mothers died in childbirth? How many of their children were stillborn, premature, or died before their first birthday?
A girl of ten may be technically physically ready to give birth, but she sure isn't ready to do so safely.
Sig by Isilrien
No, no it was not. I don't think anyone was even allowed to marry before 12, and factor in 10 months of pregnancy and it is hardly the norm to be having babies even at 13. Either way that doesn't make having babies at 10 any less not normal. 2 years is a big difference in this age range.
Also keep in mind that puberty used to start much later than it does today.
Last edited by semaphore; 2011-11-12 at 11:34 AM.
You're right, that's technically possible. I don't think it is very likely though. Boys usually do not start puberty until about 12 or so, so it is not very likely that the father is much younger than that. While if the father was much older than that, then it still becomes a case of statutory rape. Remember she was likely to have become pregnant at 9.
Last edited by semaphore; 2011-11-12 at 11:48 AM.
i facepalm... then a facepalmed... then i said wtf roll over and wish i was somewhere else
this is so messed up.
Why and what do people think..
sigh
It's fairly sad that this is nothing new. Modern children are having sex at earlier and earlier ages, which I blame on shows such as 16 and Pregnant, and haven't learned the consequences of having children, so they don't do anything to prevent it.
Much older, yes, but in most cultures it's considered normal for an older male and a younger female to be in a relationship. Note that I'm not saying that a ten year old having sex is normal in any way just that we can probably expect, if the father was around the same age as her, that he would probably be a little bit older than her and I don't think anyone would say a twelve year old boy raped a ten year old girl, even if he is technically at the age of consent in their area. Even if she cannot legally consent, there is all the difference between her being forcibly raped and "statutory rape". That's why many US states have "Romeo and Juliet" laws.
I know that girls are trending to start puberty earlier and earlier, and at a much higher percentage in hispanic girls than caucasian girls. I don't know if similar studies have been done on boys (likely not to the same extent, since there's less of an obvious "ah-ha!" moment when a boy officially reaches puberty), but it would stand to logic that the same holds true for them.
I'm not trying to justify anything or paint this in a better light. I think it's depressing that a ten year old girl is now a mother and the possibility of it being against her will makes me sick to my stomach. But there's an equal possibility that she, however ignorantly or naively, did have sex willingly with a boy of similar age to her own. Neither of them are likely to have fully understood the possible consequences of their actions. Getting pregnant is something grown-ups do.
Sig by Isilrien
Nothing special, in Romania, Roma community girls give birth from 10 as normal thing, we had pregnant girls from 9 even (she lost the baby), 10, 11 etc. and the state couldn't care less. I don't agree with it but if the state doesn't do anything what can I? nothing as the Roma community members have a sort of clan mentality, they're a minority and as such the state treats them like kings and it's kind of annoying. I'd give a part of my country to these Roma community(like Oltenia, they'd fit right in there) if I would be sure I'd never see them again in other parts. Call me racist if you want, maybe I am but only towards them.