[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

It is illegal, and im lucky i have never been in the position as a mother to have to face this. I oppose it on grounds that once a girl is 'active' and has the implant it only protects from unwanted pregnancy...and the use of condoms is no longer required. I disagree with this.

Precise at very much to the point.

It's allowing underagers to go around having sex - and avoiding pregnancy. The point isn't to avoid pregnancy: the point is for them not to be having sex at such a vulnerable age. Christ, at 13, their still in puberty - their bodies are still maturing as well as their emotions, their psyche.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Precise at very much to the point.

It's allowing underagers to go around having sex - and avoiding pregnancy. The point isn't to avoid pregnancy: the point is for them not to be having sex at such a vulnerable age. Christ, at 13, their still in puberty - their bodies are still maturing as well as their emotions, their psyche.

Exactly, to suggest that they're capable of deciding to start sexual relations at this age and to predict what effect it will have on them is quite frankly ludicrous.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Exactly, to suggest that they're capable of deciding to start sexual relations at this age and to predict what effect it will have on them is quite frankly ludicrous.

It is beyond any sensible comprehension to equate that because they may understand the biological 'theory' that they are ready for physical and emotional reparcussions. Ludicrious is precisely the correct term I'd say;.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Can't stand the parents that are complaining about this. It's a child's choice as to when to have sex, as long as they consent to it and understand the potential consequences of it (which there needs to be a lot of education about), then it's no business of anyone else when, where or who they have sex with...same as it applies to adults.

It might seem too young...but it happens, and let's be honest, there are far worse things in the world than underage sex.

Not at 13 no..

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

to be quite honest with you Jack, I don't think at 16 (I think you are around this age) you have a clue whether or not 13 year olds are capable of deciding that they are old enough to have sex or not. Not to mention the fact that it is illegal. I have no doubt that most 13 year olds think they can do and are ready for anything. They're not.

Again...you completely missed one of the points I made. Yes, it might be illegal. But that's open to discussion and varies around the world. That doesn't necessarily make it right, it's a matter of opinion.

As for your last point...I'm actually in agreement with you. I have to surround myself with many 12/13 year olds every single day, and I often discuss and joke with both friends and teachers about how irritating they are, and how a fair few of them believe that they know everything.

But this is the problem and the massive stereotype young people face - that they are incapable of understanding and are simply just awful members of society. But that's not right at all. I know many 13 year olds that are very intelligent, know right from wrong, and are far, far, far more mature than say some 17 year olds...who can be the complete opposite. That includes physical maturity as well. It's simply not a case of 'all under 13's are ignorant, immature, poorly educated morons', as with people of all ages and from all walks of life...those types of people appear everywhere, it's not something that applies to everyone. Again, it's an individual thing, not a collective thing, no matter how much we all assume and perhaps joke about it.

There's no need to be rude and quite patronising because I've made some points that you disagree with...

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

No, you said quite specifically:



How do they provide for said child as you are of the opinion of - without the aid of expecting their parents to provide for it.

Oh ...they can't.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I am in total agreeance with you on this one. 100% .

Fair enough then, if you're going to be pedantic - I cannot have meant 'you', and so I apologise (see...like I said in the other thread, this is something I'm capable of doing).

Let me rephrase it. If you have a child, it is your responsibility to ensure that it is provided for in some way, an example being whether or not you pass the 'burden' onto your parents.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Can't stand the parents that are complaining about this. It's a child's choice as to when to have sex, as long as they consent to it and understand the potential consequences of it (which there needs to be a lot of education about), then it's no business of anyone else when, where or who they have sex with...same as it applies to adults.

It might seem too young...but it happens, and let's be honest, there are far worse things in the world than underage sex.

And that is probably the biggest flaw in your argument, at 13-16 you may feel mature, legally you cant work to support your offspring, you have to rely on others. your body be be capable of having young, its not recommended, one of the biggest causes of cervical cancer is overdoing sex at too early an age. As for being emotionally capable of having sex and coping with the result of that decision,

While sex is fun at any age (after puberty of course) there are a lot of potential repercussions even adults dont understand till later life.

While it may be true people are maturing earlier in life physically and mentally they are also supposedly under more pressure at school etc. Do they also need the added stress o being responsible for another life.

Another point to consider is that this kind of implant indirectly helps contribute to rising STD rates. With people deciding not to use a parallel barrier form of contraceptive to prevent spread of sexually transmissable diseases.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Again...you completely missed one of the points I made. Yes, it might be illegal. But that's open to discussion and varies around the world. That doesn't necessarily make it right, it's a matter of opinion.

As for your last point...I'm actually in agreement with you. I have to surround myself with many 12/13 year olds every single day, and I often discuss and joke with both friends and teachers about how irritating they are, and how a fair few of them believe that they know everything.

But this is the problem and the massive stereotype young people face - that they are incapable of understanding and are simply just awful members of society. But that's not right at all. I know many 13 year olds that are very intelligent, know right from wrong, and are far, far, far more mature than say some 17 year olds...who can be the complete opposite. That includes physical maturity as well. It's simply not a case of 'all under 13's are ignorant, immature, poorly educated morons', as with people of all ages and from all walks of life...those types of people appear everywhere, it's not something that applies to everyone. Again, it's an individual thing, not a collective thing, no matter how much we all assume and perhaps joke about it.

There's no need to be rude and quite patronising because I've made some points that you disagree with...





Fair enough then, if you're going to be pedantic - I cannot have meant 'you', and so I apologise (see...like I said in the other thread, this is something I'm capable of doing).

Let me rephrase it. If you have a child, it is your responsibility to ensure that it is provided for in some way, an example being whether or not you pass the 'burden' onto your parents.

Parts in bold above...What was that you just accused Niamh of....and then displayed your very own version of being precisely what you accused her of doing!! LOL.

No need to rephrase Jack. You tripped yourself up, now you're trying to dig yourself out of the hole you dug yourself into. It's not up to the 'grandparents' .... you were very clear in what you said: it is the responsibility of the teen parent.

Why should anyone else be burdened with a child that is not their own - they shouldn't be - which is the whole basis of the discussion.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Shasown

And that is probably the biggest flaw in your argument, at 13-16 you may feel mature, legally you cant work to support your offspring, you have to rely on others. your body be be capable of having young, its not recommended, one of the biggest causes of cervical cancer is overdoing sex at too early an age. As for being emotionally capable of having sex and coping with the result of that decision,

While sex is fun at any age (after puberty of course) there are a lot of potential repercussions even adults dont understand till later life.

While it may be true people are maturing earlier in life physically and mentally they are also supposedly under more pressure at school etc. Do they also need the added stress o being responsible for another life.

Another point to consider is that this kind of implant indirectly helps contribute to rising STD rates. With people deciding not to use a parallel barrier form of contraceptive to prevent spread of sexually transmissable diseases.

Interesting, fair points. Thank you for at least being able to counter argue unlike some other members who abstain and simply bypass points...

Regarding the potential causes of cervical cancers - well that's an interesting one. Because as detrimental as that obviously is, I also believe it's an individuals choice as to how much they protect themselves from illness, disease and death. For example...if someone wishes to refrain from going on diets, and doesn't mind if they get fat, accepts the consequences and doesn't mind if perhaps they die young...that's their choice. Whilst other people may not act in the same way, that person is still entitled to value their life in their own particular way. So as such I believe the same applies here - and maybe then this sort of information should also be added to sex education so that it's another consequence children and young adults could take on board.

Not quite sure where I stand on your second point. It's a stress, yes, but again the potential stresses is something that should also be added to sex education lessons - and then as such people can decide whether or not they wish to take on those potential stresses. Of course that doesn't mean they'll understand how stressful it may be, so actually, that's quite a valid point you've made there.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Parts in bold above...What was that you just accused Niamh of....and then displayed your very own version of being precisely what you accused her of doing!! LOL.

Not really, considering you did a lot of patronising towards me in the other thread anyway, so I guess I could bring up the same point?

I was just pointing out that I'm perfectly capable of counter arguing properly, and if someone makes reasoned, valid points I'm also perfectly capable of stepping back and realising that perhaps my points have some flaws in them, instead of just bypassing points and attempting to quit the argument...some don't have those capabilities.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

No need to rephrase Jack. You tripped yourself up, now you're trying to dig yourself out of the hole you dug yourself into. It's not up to the 'grandparents' .... you were very clear in what you said: it is the responsibility of the teen parent.

Or perhaps, just perhaps...you were being your usual pedantic self? As for 'digging myself out of a hole' - well, no, considering I've taken some of Shasown's let's say...more reasoned, coherent points on board and accepted that they do in some ways undermine my points. So once again, you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Why should anyone else be burdened with a child that is not their own - they shouldn't be - which is the whole basis of the discussion.

If the parents are willing to take on the child - then that is their decision.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Jack_

If the parents are willing to take on the child - then that is their decision.

Dont know about your use of the word willing, I dont think many parents of teenage parents willingly look after the infant, they do it out a sense of moral and family responsibility. and also out of love and concern for their own child.


After all if the infant isnt cared for properly, social services may become involved even removing the child from the extended family unit bringing stigma and shame to them.

[lostalex]

so many words, so little meaning...

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Interesting, fair points. Thank you for at least being able to counter argue unlike some other members who abstain and simply bypass points...

Regarding the potential causes of cervical cancers - well that's an interesting one. Because as detrimental as that obviously is, I also believe it's an individuals choice as to how much they protect themselves from illness, disease and death. For example...if someone wishes to refrain from going on diets, and doesn't mind if they get fat, accepts the consequences and doesn't mind if perhaps they die young...that's their choice. Whilst other people may not act in the same way, that person is still entitled to value their life in their own particular way. So as such I believe the same applies here - and maybe then this sort of information should also be added to sex education so that it's another consequence children and young adults could take on board.

Not quite sure where I stand on your second point. It's a stress, yes, but again the potential stresses is something that should also be added to sex education lessons - and then as such people can decide whether or not they wish to take on those potential stresses. Of course that doesn't mean they'll understand how stressful it may be, so actually, that's quite a valid point you've made there.



Not really, considering you did a lot of patronising towards me in the other thread anyway, so I guess I could bring up the same point?

I was just pointing out that I'm perfectly capable of counter arguing properly, and if someone makes reasoned, valid points I'm also perfectly capable of stepping back and realising that perhaps my points have some flaws in them, instead of just bypassing points and attempting to quit the argument...some don't have those capabilities.





Or perhaps, just perhaps...you were being your usual pedantic self? As for 'digging myself out of a hole' - well, no, considering I've taken some of Shasown's let's say...more reasoned, coherent points on board and accepted that they do in some ways undermine my points. So once again, you're wrong.



If the parents are willing to take on the child - then that is their decision.

Once again: you move the goalposts: you take one strong stance and when met with valid counter points, as I made to you very early on, you then build in safety nets all over the place.

If the parents are not willing to take on the grandchild..... what then? What if the do not want a pregnant teenager in their house. You know, that same teenager that you said at the start, it was their decision - and that it was their choice. What then.....how do you propose that small matter is dealt with?

BTW: if you are going to attempt to have a mature & serious discussion: you really should reconsdder your use of the crazy smiley ..... all it's doing is highlighting a lack of maturity on your part, in my opinion.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Again...you completely missed one of the points I made. Yes, it might be illegal. But that's open to discussion and varies around the world. That doesn't necessarily make it right, it's a matter of opinion.

As for your last point...I'm actually in agreement with you. I have to surround myself with many 12/13 year olds every single day, and I often discuss and joke with both friends and teachers about how irritating they are, and how a fair few of them believe that they know everything.

But this is the problem and the massive stereotype young people face - that they are incapable of understanding and are simply just awful members of society. But that's not right at all. I know many 13 year olds that are very intelligent, know right from wrong, and are far, far, far more mature than say some 17 year olds...who can be the complete opposite. That includes physical maturity as well. It's simply not a case of 'all under 13's are ignorant, immature, poorly educated morons', as with people of all ages and from all walks of life...those types of people appear everywhere, it's not something that applies to everyone. Again, it's an individual thing, not a collective thing, no matter how much we all assume and perhaps joke about it.

There's no need to be rude and quite patronising because I've made some points that you disagree with...





Fair enough then, if you're going to be pedantic - I cannot have meant 'you', and so I apologise (see...like I said in the other thread, this is something I'm capable of doing).

Let me rephrase it. If you have a child, it is your responsibility to ensure that it is provided for in some way, an example being whether or not you pass the 'burden' onto your parents.

I certainly don't think 13 year olds are morons, but I do think that they are children. I also think that until you're an adult you don't fully realise that. I wasn't saying that to be patronizing and I apologise if you think that, I just think it's a fact of life.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Once again: you move the goalposts: you take one strong stance and when met with valid counter points, as I made to you very early on, you then build in safety nets all over the place.

If the parents are not willing to take on the grandchild..... what then? What if the do not want a pregnant teenager in their house. You know, that same teenager that you said at the start, it was their decision - and that it was their choice. What then.....how do you propose that small matter is dealt with?

BTW: if you are going to attempt to have a mature & serious discussion: you really should reconsdder your use of the crazy smiley ..... all it's doing is highlighting a lack of maturity on your part, in my opinion.

Of course I do...it's outstanding that you can sit there and criticise the way I conduct myself in arguments, when you're the worst at it anyway...

If the parents aren't willing to take on the child, and the child themselves can't provide for their child (that's a bit confusing), then social services would have to step in and have it put up for adoption, as if not the newborn could face being neglected - and in any case that's a situation where someone should step in. Might be sad, but again - maybe that's something else that should be drilled into the mind's of children during their education.

And I'm sorry but if you really think you're mature when you constantly ignore points and then attempt to bait the person you're arguing with, as well as falsely claiming you're 'bored' amongst other fantastic lines, then well...no words.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I certainly don't think 13 year olds are morons, but I do think that they are children. I also think that until you're an adult you don't fully realise that. I wasn't saying that to be patronizing and I apologise if you think that, I just think it's a fact of life.

But that's precisely the point I brought up at the start of the thread. You think they are children, as do many other people. But in other nations they aren't considered children. Childhood isn't a concept that is set in stone - it's conjured up and varies in different parts of the world. I'm not saying our concept of childhood is 'wrong' as such...it's just an interesting thing to point out.

And well I don't really believe I'll change my mind on this issue. If and when I have children, I'll ensure that they receive all the necessary education regarding sex, and are told about possible consequences and to avoid them at all costs. So long as they are safe, happy and ready, and physically and mentally mature enough to cope - I believe it will be their decision.

Perhaps I've taken the point of this thread a bit too far on reflection. But my original point which I still stand by is that I don't believe it's the business of any parent to know whether or not their child is having certain check-ups and things like this article in question, if I've understood the story right. As with all things surrounding medical advice and help - a lot of it, if not all of it is confidential, and so long as the child is receiving any required treatment or advice, then I don't feel that the parent needs to know.

[Ninastar]

I can't believe what I have read in this thread

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Of course I do...it's outstanding that you can sit there and criticise the way I conduct myself in arguments, when you're the worst at it anyway...

If the parents aren't willing to take on the child, and the child themselves can't provide for their child (that's a bit confusing), then social services would have to step in and have it put up for adoption, as if not the newborn could face being neglected - and in any case that's a situation where someone should step in. Might be sad, but again - maybe that's something else that should be drilled into the mind's of children during their education.

And I'm sorry but if you really think you're mature when you constantly ignore points and then attempt to bait the person you're arguing with, as well as falsely claiming you're 'bored' amongst other fantastic lines, then well...no words.



But that's precisely the point I brought up at the start of the thread. You think they are children, as do many other people. But in other nations they aren't considered children. Childhood isn't a concept that is set in stone - it's conjured up and varies in different parts of the world. I'm not saying our concept of childhood is 'wrong' as such...it's just an interesting thing to point out.

And well I don't really believe I'll change my mind on this issue. If and when I have children, I'll ensure that they receive all the necessary education regarding sex, and are told about possible consequences and to avoid them at all costs. So long as they are safe, happy and ready, and physically and mentally mature enough to cope - I believe it will be their decision.

Perhaps I've taken the point of this thread a bit too far on reflection. But my original point which I still stand by is that I don't believe it's the business of any parent to know whether or not their child is having certain check-ups and things like this article in question, if I've understood the story right. As with all things surrounding medical advice and help - a lot of it, if not all of it is confidential, and so long as the child is receiving any required treatment or advice, then I don't feel that the parent needs to know.

I do happen to agree that our society have it right about which ages are considered children. I'm basing that on both my own experience of being that age and seeing the differences in my friends now and then and also from my own children/step children.

The point I'm making is, parents are legally and morally responsible for the welfare of their children till they're 16/18 which makes it (imo and in how I personally practise my parental duties) our business because in most cases, we'll be the ones left picking up the pieces if it all goes pear shaped.

Again, I do want to stress, I really don't mean to sound patronising when I say I think it's hard for you to be objective about it when you are still a teenager but it is true that peoples opinions on this do change drastically in later years and when they look back.

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I do happen to agree that our society have it right about which ages are considered children. I'm basing that on both my own experience of being that age and seeing the differences in my friends now and then and also from my own children/step children.

The point I'm making is, parents are legally and morally responsible for the welfare of their children till they're 16/18 which makes it (imo and in how I personally practise my parental duties) our business because in most cases, we'll be the ones left picking up the pieces if it all goes pear shaped.

Again, I do want to stress, I really don't mean to sound patronising when I say I think it's hard for you to be objective about it when you are still teenager but it is true that peoples opinions on this do change drastically in later years and they look back.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Ninastar

I can't believe what I have read in this thread

Not every Young Girl wants a baby.

[Kizzy]

I also feel jack you are on very shaky ground, as you say the age of consent in other countries may be lower this does not make it right and can lead to the exploitation of children. Laws are in place to protect children from themselves as well as others, if children had free reign to do as they wished you my find 15yr olds getting boob jobs...or 11yr olds getting tattoos...
I do mot feel that whilst yes they at 13 have all the bits in the right place and in full working order, they are not mature enough to deal with the responsibility that comes with it.

[Beastie]

It's sign of the times. Yes 13 is a young age. Bet they have barely started their period then. They are still growing and having this contraceptive injected inside of you is kind of stopping you naturally going through all the hormones of what a teenager goes through to develop into a woman.

Anyway this is the last solution. If 13 year olds are having sex they best take this contraception. Better than getting pregnant!

Still need to educate girls to not have sex before they are 16 first. But year after year girls are doing it at an earlier age as well as boys.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I do happen to agree that our society have it right about which ages are considered children.

Really though? I don't think everything about our idea of childhood is right...

For example, you can join the army at 16, but can't play violent video games until you're 18. You can have sex at 16, but not watch porn until you're 18. You can get married (with your parents consent) at 16, but you can't have a drink to celebrate it until you're 18...not everything's perfect, some of the laws designed to supposedly 'protect' children pretty much contradict each other, it's quite stupid.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The point I'm making is, parents are legally and morally responsible for the welfare of their children till they're 16/18 which makes it (imo and in how I personally practise my parental duties) our business because in most cases, we'll be the ones left picking up the pieces if it all goes pear shaped.

Again, I do want to stress, I really don't mean to sound patronising when I say I think it's hard for you to be objective about it when you are still a teenager but it is true that peoples opinions on this do change drastically in later years and when they look back.

But the point is - when it comes to medical advice and help, it should all be confidential. So long as you are of an age where you are able to comprehend what you are being told, then I don't see why anyone else should be able to pry into your personal business unless you wish them to. For example, six year olds wouldn't be able to understand things that their GP was telling them, and so they would need their parent or guardian present, but at age 13 I think most people are capable of understanding and seeking medical advice or help. You might not think they're ready for sex, or work, but I'm sure most have the ability to understand things that they're being told.

Don't forget, it can be quite embarrassing for some young people to discuss such personal issues with their parents. And so that is why all information shared with those who give them advice is strictly confidential - so that they feel safe and are able to open up more, they wouldn't do that if they thought their parents may find out...and that could have some very dangerous consequences. Surely that's better than children suppressing their feelings and concerns about their health?

Whilst you or others may not like it, or want it to happen, the fact of the matter is underage sex happens. And realistically it can't be prevented. If they want to do it, the chances are they're going to...at such young ages when their hormones are all over the place it's not as simple as just restraining from doing it. It might be for some, but not all. And it does happen...whether or not that's a good thing is of course a completely separate debate. It's about dealing with the issues at hand though; surely, if it happens (as it does), then it's better for those people to able to get help and advice, rather than be ignorant to it all and potentially cause them or others some serious harm?

Originally Posted by kizzy

I also feel jack you are on very shaky ground, as you say the age of consent in other countries may be lower this does not make it right and can lead to the exploitation of children. Laws are in place to protect children from themselves as well as others, if children had free reign to do as they wished you my find 15yr olds getting boob jobs...or 11yr olds getting tattoos...
I do mot feel that whilst yes they at 13 have all the bits in the right place and in full working order, they are not mature enough to deal with the responsibility that comes with it.

Of course it can, I'm not denying that, but there is of course the argument that children are overly protected in some instances in this country. For example...if a student falsely accuses a teacher of sexually assaulting them, the teacher is suspended with immediate effect, and when it's found out that the student was lying...the teacher's reinstated (with their reputation tarnished of course) and the student will most likely be given a warning...or at best excluded. How is that fair?

Underage people get tattoos now anyway, it's not a rare thing. And I'm not completely against that either...as for the boob jobs...well...again, that's another debate and my opinions on that would properly start this entire argument off again.

You are of course assuming that all children need overly protecting, and whilst they do, some things are taken too far. Every child is different, they're individuals...not a collective. There are varying degrees of maturity and intelligence, and so that's why it's difficult when it comes to setting rules, laws and boundaries to 'protect' children.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Really though? I don't think everything about our idea of childhood is right...

For example, you can join the army at 16, but can't play violent video games until you're 18. You can have sex at 16, but not watch porn until you're 18. You can get married (with your parents consent) at 16, but you can't have a drink to celebrate it until you're 18...not everything's perfect, some of the laws designed to supposedly 'protect' children pretty much contradict each other, it's quite stupid.

You can join the army as an apprentice at 16 (with the consent of your parents), but you will not be deployed on any kind of active service until you're 18.

If you think sex in a relationship and watching porn are the same thing, then I suspect you're watching too much porn.

You can get married at 18 without your parents' consent, and then have a drink to celebrate.

18 is the age of majority. One day, you will understand the sense in that. There is no rush... you only think there is.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Livia

You can join the army as an apprentice at 16 (with the consent of your parents), but you will not be deployed on any kind of active service until you're 18.

Fair point.

Originally Posted by Livia

If you think sex in a relationship and watching porn are the same thing, then I suspect you're watching too much porn

I never said they are, in fact I argue against those who suggest they are the same. But regardless of how much porn may be exaggerated, the point is that it still depicts sexual acts. What difference is it going to make if someone watches porn at 18, compared to 16? The answer - no difference at all.

Not only that...but it'd mean you can't make a sex tape until you're 18. Or rather you can, but you can't watch it until you're that age. That seems pretty stupid to me.

Originally Posted by Livia

You can get married at 18 without your parents' consent, and then have a drink to celebrate.

That's not really answered my point to be honest. It doesn't matter if you can get married at 18 without your parents consent, what matters is you can get married at 16 (albeit with parents consent), yet you can't have a drink to celebrate it. Either don't allow people to get married at 16, or reduce the drinking age.

Originally Posted by Livia

18 is the age of majority. One day, you will understand the sense in that. There is no rush... you only think there is.

I've never said there's any rush at all. All I'm saying is that there are people who are younger than 18 that are much more physically and mentally mature, and more intelligent than some of those that are over 18. Sadly, people don't seem to consider this and just assume that until you have reached 18, you are incapable of doing certain things and must be protected from every sin the world has on offer.

[MTVN]

So by your logic Jack, 13/14 year olds should be allowed to participate in porn?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by MTVN

So by your logic Jack, 13/14 year olds should be allowed to participate in porn?

Obviously not...let's not over exaggerate the situation here. That'd clearly leave the door wide open for child pornography offences.

But by some people's definition in this thread, children shouldn't be having sex and 16 is an acceptable age. Therefore, if 16 year olds can have sex, and were allowed to record it, surely it couldn't be considered 'child porn'...as...well, children aren't allowed to have sex, no? That's how I've understood it.

I don't think people have fully understood what I've said in this thread. I admit I've stretched my point a bit too far on some of the issues on reflection, and for that I apologise, but my original point still stands - underage sex does happen, and will happen for years to come. The real issue is with dealing with the consequences, or preventing the potential consequences. By offering advice and medical treatment like reported in the original article - that's dealing with the issue. That seems far more important to me than trying to condemn those who engage in underage sex, as if you ask me, practically it's unpreventable.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Obviously not...let's not over exaggerate the situation here. That'd clearly leave the door wide open for child pornography offences.

But by some people's definition in this thread, children shouldn't be having sex and 16 is an acceptable age. Therefore, if 16 year olds can have sex, and were allowed to record it, surely it couldn't be considered 'child porn'...as...well, children aren't allowed to have sex, no? That's how I've understood it.

I don't think people have fully understood what I've said in this thread. I admit I've stretched my point a bit too far on some of the issues on reflection, and for that I apologise, but my original point still stands - underage sex does happen, and will happen for years to come. The real issue is with dealing with the consequences, or preventing the potential consequences. By offering advice and medical treatment like reported in the original article - that's dealing with the issue. That seems far more important to me than trying to condemn those who engage in underage sex, as if you ask me, practically it's unpreventable.

Well you seemed to be arguing in favour of lowering the age of consent while also saying the legal age for porn should match it

Anyway yes, you can't completely eradicate underage sex and measures should be taken to deal with it's consequences but there should also be a focus on trying to prevent such a situation occurring in the first place, or at least reducing it in any case.