[Mexico] 10 year old girl gives birth! O.o

[Deleted]

Since when could females give birth before they started their feminine puberty?

puberty starts pretty early in some and in some later

[Tigercat]

Girl born in (either 2000 or)2001 gives birth. Feels old, man.

[Nacly]

A 10 year old mother is just absurd. It's sad to see things like this happen, honestly.

[Deleted]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngest_mother

Read that.

How the...I didn't even know it was possible to get pregnant at 5 years old.

[Meldanion]

I'm curious - why is it immediately rape? What if the boy with her was 11. Automatically he raped her? No matter what it was his idea, after all surely the 10 year old girl is perfectly innocent but the 11 year old boy is a deviant? Surely she could not have been willing..... Give me a break.

Yes, I'm older and for me to do with that one so young is just sick. But the idea that this is so awful is only a recent idea - dating back 100 years at the most. Think about Little House on the Prairie. What was she 13 when she got married? And that wasn't even considered too young at all. And this is Mexico - so you have to almost put them on par with us in the 1850's honestly. We only adjusted to the "18 to get married, your not an adult until then" when our life expectancy grew so much. Theirs isn't that high.

I can guarantee you there are 10 year old girls in Africa with boys near their age already in arranged marriages and likely pregnant. For them to wait until 14 would probably seem as equally weird to you as that age does to us.

Don't be so quick to judge or play the rape card.

Also - my ex-wife once confessed to me of having erotic dreams at age 9. No sexual abuse or anything strange, that's just when it woke in her. Which is also when her periods started. I.e. the hormones turned on and desires started along with them. She confessed to initiating some things as early as 11 with boys (the boys were about as confused as anything as to what to do). This idea that these little girls at this age are surely innocent and must have been raped is all well in good in fairyland, but simply not the realy. I know it's hard to think of little girls as something other that sugar, spice all that's nice, but they are just as perverted as boys and it typically awakens at an earlier age - as it happens when the hormones turn on and girls generally get their period at an earlier age than boys hit puberty.

Have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

[Gorilla Eyes]

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.

[Mihalik]

If you think 10 year olds are too young, you really shouldn't look at human history.
There's a reason for the remark "if she bleeds, she breeds". Back in the day, before penicillin, infant mortality rate was really high. In addition, you needed kids help to work the farm and whatever. The only way to accomplish a lot of things it to breed as fast as possible. This included what we define as kids.

The big deal for us is 10 year old's have no method to survive on their own. We deem them irresponsible and incapable of making live changing decisions. We believe at 18, you're smart enough for live changing decisions (excluding alcohol, being the President, a member of Congress, etc). From others perceptions about it, they look at us as we're going out of our way to teach children (<18 yo) that they can not be responsible until this magic number 18 hits them. In Texas, it's 17, btw, with a 3 year Romeo and Juliet clause.

Personally, I don't know what age I'd argue for a reasonable age of consent because our society isn't ready to allow our children to have responsibility. We barely allow them to drive at 16, much less hold a job that pays anything worth its weight. So 18 isn't an unreasonable number for practical reasons, but for biological reasons it's far too high. If you want emotional/ethical reasons, it's too low -- as one should have to be around 25 before you gain Adult rights. So I guess I'd start with the age of 25, just to start. Maybe lower though. My only complaint about when "kids" get preggo is: Where they forced or manipulated? If yes, that's bad. If no, I'm not too concerned. the reason I only care about rape and manipulation is that's the only arena adults win in -- experience and raw strength. If you don't want your kid screwing around then be a responsible parent and buy them a vibrator. Throw in some condoms, just to be safe. Anything, I argue, is being an irresponsible parent by putting your head in the sand.

I think far too often people forget we are still slaves to our biological masters. We're horny because our body says "MAKE BABY NOW!". There are 13 year old that look like 18 AND get in to bars with a fake ID. They are horny like anyone else but are held to a different standard. Right, wrong, or indifferent -- that's the way it is and it'll be a political war to change it. The war won't be able what's best for the children or adults. It'll be what looks best and will help assist in voting people in to power.

In the US, sex is a scary thing. Showing vag in a movie will get you an X rating. But showing someone losing their torso and blood everywhere may still net you a PG-13 or maybe an R. Sex is natural and something your body really likes. Killing, not so much. Personally, I find us as backwards.

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.)

[Deleted]

10 years old?

[MerinPally]

(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.)

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.

[Deleted]

That is just... wrong...

[semaphore]

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.

That's called "Statutory Rape" - so called because it's not rape, in the classic sense. Either way...12 is far too young for consent and a 10 year old having sex is plain disgusting.

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.

[soup kitchen]

Go back 100 years and 12+ year old girls having kids was normal

[snuzzle]

Age of consent is 12 (which is far too low IMHO), so she IS raped. This is a sad, sorry story. I hope both mother and child receive the support they will need going forward.

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.

Go back 100 years and 12+ year old girls having kids was normal

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.

[semaphore]

Go back 100 years and 12+ year old girls having kids was normal

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.

[semaphore]

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.

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.

[Noix]

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

[Brettshock]

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.

[snuzzle]

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.

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.

[Deleted]

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.

[IdTheDemon]

What.

The.

Fuck?