# Abortion pills for everyone...including predators...unintended consequences...



## billc (Jun 11, 2013)

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/06/11/a-plan-b--for-sexual-predators-n1618089



> Of course, no adult male plans to get an eleven-year-old girl pregnant, but if he does, he now has "Plan B" -- courtesy of the Obama administration.  In other words, the Obama administration has halted any effort to prevent over-the-counter sales of potentially life-ending drugs to girls of all ages.


----------



## K-man (Jun 11, 2013)

billc said:


> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/06/11/a-plan-b--for-sexual-predators-n1618089


That's a load of bull Bill.  It is not an abortion pill. It is post coital contraception and it is only effective for 3 days after unprotected intercourse. We have been able to buy them from pharmacies in Australia for the last ten years.  The sky didn't fall and the sun still comes up.  :asian:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2013)

billc said:


> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/06/11/a-plan-b--for-sexual-predators-n1618089



Of course, that article doesn't quite get it right, Bill. "Plan B" isn't necessarily for the "pregnant," as much as it is for the _penetrated_. If the patient already knows that they're pregnant, then it's too late to resort to that pill....furthermore, any man who _commits the *crime* of penetrating an *eleven year old girl*_ :burn: probably doesn't care too much about forcing her to take a potentially fatal over the counter drug........

.......or a surefire fatal overdose of aspirin..................(30g)

.......or a surefire fatal overdose of Benadryl................(1800mg-this is about 50 pills)


........or pouring drain cleaner down her throat..............

........or just smothering her to death, strangling her, stabbing her, or burying her alive. Tie weights to her ankles and toss her off a bridge.

You get the idea. The article's *stupid*.


----------



## billc (Jun 11, 2013)

You mean the coach, or teacher abusing the girl will also resort to murder to clear up the problem...gee, why didn't I think of that...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2013)

billc said:


> You mean the coach, or teacher abusing the girl will also resort to murder to clear up the problem...gee, why didn't I think of that...



Well, he could-but that's really just a little less bovine feces than the article. I mean, really, c'mon. From the article:



> Plan B is _not_ "just like condoms"; *condoms prevent a pregnancy *from occurring, while *Plan B terminates a potential pregnancy*. It is the difference between contraception and abortion.



:lfao:  I just don't understand how you can keep swallowing this crap, then vomiting it up here as though it were the Gospels....:lfao:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 11, 2013)

Kid cant get a tattoo or a beer but can buy meds and get abortions wo parental consent....great idea.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Kid cant get a tattoo or a beer but can buy meds and get abortions wo parental consent....great idea.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



This argument at least has some basis in logic and fact.


----------



## Drasken (Jun 11, 2013)

What's funny is that people that don't understand the pill or how it functions keep calling it an abortion pill.

It stops a pregnancy from happening, but a fertilized and implanted egg is not affected at all. It's also interesting to mention that Ron Paul, a Libertarian, a conservative, and a man who actually does know for a fact what the pill does. Also someone against abortion completely is a supporter of the morning after pill and the availability of it.

Seriously, use of birth control is intelligent. And it cuts down seriously on unwanted pregnancy. Which cuts down even more on abortions. So how is it a bad thing? You can't stop people from having sex. So at least do it safely, and have a backup plan that doesn't involve ending the life of a developing fetus. I'm surprised you don't support this concept.


----------



## Drasken (Jun 11, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Kid cant get a tattoo or a beer but can buy meds and get abortions wo parental consent....great idea.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



There is indeed some merit to this argument. At such a young age, nobody has the capacity to make life changing decisions for themselves. Birth control availability I can see, but not abortion. Still, keep in mind that morning after pill is not abortion though. It's a fine line here.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2013)

Drasken said:


> Seriously, use of birth control is intelligent.





Drasken said:


> I'm surprised you don't support this concept.




Don't be.

:lfao:


----------



## Cirdan (Jun 12, 2013)

K-man said:


> That's a load of bull Bill. It is not an abortion pill. It is post coital contraception and it is only effective for 3 days after unprotected intercourse. We have been able to buy them from pharmacies in Australia for the last ten years. The sky didn't fall and the sun still comes up. :asian:



Same here in Norway, it is also available at groceries and gas stations. We get an occational rumble from below, but the ground hasn`t split apart and swallowed us all.. yet.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 12, 2013)

C'mon, guys. It's just Bill spouting partisan nonsense. After this long, who really takes him seriously anymore?


----------



## billc (Jun 12, 2013)

The focus of the article is about sexual predators using the easy availability of this over the counter pill to hide their crimes.  There was a gym teacher at my high school who was having sex with two, maybe more, obviously underage cheerleaders.  This pill makes it easier for them to hide this kind of activity.  What about molestation in a family?  This pill makes it easier.

As a medical Professional, is it wise to allow girls as young as 12 or 13, or younger to be able to buy this pill without a trained professional overseeing the process?  Shouldn't someone know if they are having sex with a boyfriend at that age?


----------



## Drasken (Jun 12, 2013)

billc said:


> The focus of the article is about sexual predators using the easy availability of this over the counter pill to hide their crimes.  There was a gym teacher at my high school who was having sex with two, maybe more, obviously underage cheerleaders.  This pill makes it easier for them to hide this kind of activity.  What about molestation in a family?  This pill makes it easier.
> 
> As a medical Professional, is it wise to allow girls as young as 12 or 13, or younger to be able to buy this pill without a trained professional overseeing the process?  Shouldn't someone know if they are having sex with a boyfriend at that age?



Well how does it logically matter if a child can buy the pill? If an adult is using it to prevent an underage victim from becoming pregnant they will buy the pill themselves. So really this article is an overreaction and based on flawed logic. An adult can buy this pill. It doesn't matter if a young teen can.
And once again, this pill is birth control. Not abortion in a bottle. Availability of birth control means fewer unwanted pregnancies. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 12, 2013)

Problem I have is by making this available to kids.  Has it been properly tested for long term effects on a teenager?  Body chemesty is different between adults and teens.  If my daughter is able to buy these pills without my knowledge and something happens medically and I don't know she took these pills it could potentially cause a dangerous situation.  If you over 18 and something happens well that's on you and you assume the risk.  A 15 year old doesn't understand the risk.  A 15 year old buys condoms they won't die but taking a medication opens the possibility an adult should be notified


----------



## elder999 (Jun 12, 2013)

billc said:


> As a medical Professional, is it wise to allow girls as young as 12 or 13, or younger to be able to buy this pill without a trained professional overseeing the process?



What "_process?_ 

I mean, you do know how babies are made, right? 

You don't have to be a "medical professional" to know that-regardless of age-if a female takes this drug in the three days after being impregnated, she might not have gotten pregnant, anyway? 

That if conception were going to occur, all this drug does is keep that from happening, or interrupt it? 

That if conception does occur, you may think of it as a "living human being," but it's basically a collection of cells-like, *8* cells- smaller than the size of the tip of a very sharp #2 pencil? 

View attachment $Day 3 embryo.jpg

That the "process" occurs every month (in females who are capable of becoming pregnant) and it's called her period?

See, Bill-this is the kind of crap you just lap up, regurgitate and expect others to accept. I get it, you're Catholic, you think abortion is wrong-your church's position is that most _contraception_ is wrong, and that this pill "interrupts the word and will of God." 

So Bill, for the love of God, and the sake of your soul, man, _don't take this pill_. Okay? :lfao:



billc said:


> Shouldn't someone know if they are having sex with a boyfriend at that age?



Odds are good that if she's having sex with a boyfriend at that age, someone does know, but it's not her parents.

And, not as a medical professional, but as the father of a daughter whom I love very much, I'm glad that this pill will be readily available for girls who-for a variety of reasons-might need it but not feel comfortable asking their parents to get it. As a parent, I raised my kids to make their own informed decisions, and didn't put my head in the sand about what they might or might not be doing, or getting away with-nor did I watch them 24/7 and curtail their normal social development-I didn't have the luxury of that sort of time-I had to trust them. That trust paid off, I think-but I don't know if my daughter ever had an abortion, or if she's ever even had sex with a member of the opposite sex, for that matter.


----------



## Drasken (Jun 13, 2013)

I can understand the argument about teens getting this without parents knowing. And yes there are risks with birth control pills. My wife was on birth control at 16 because of horrible periods due to a hormonal imbalance. The pills corrected it, but she needed her mom to sign off on it.

However I have heard similar arguments reguarding easy access to condoms for teens as well. And I understand parents who are uncomfortable with the idea. But when many parents only tell their kids "Don't have sex" and expect them to just not do it, I can understand access to birth control being a good thing.
If I were a parent I would teach safe sex, and give access to birth control methods because logically a teen will act on hormonal impulses. If you really want to deny that, just think back to highschool and try to remember all of the teens having sex even then.

Now, yes there should be accurate tests to make sure there are no health concerns. But I honestly don't know that there aren't. I haven't looked quite that far into it because I obviously never planned on taking it. However I am not so quick to demonize something that I haven't fully researched. But I HAVE researched it enough to know that it most certainly is not an abortion in any way. To abort a pregnancy, a person must actually be pregnant. And this pill stops the pregnancy before an egg can be fertilized and then implanted in the uterus.
Same as a birth control pill.

Now, if you disagree with any form of birth control that's fine. But you can't force that belief on others. Or expect them to just not be sexually active. And if pregnancy is stopped before it can happen, then there is no need for abortion which is much more questionable morally.
So honestly, birth control is good. And so is proper education on sexuality and said methods of birth control. Now, that being said, I do believe that if a parent needs to give permission for regular birth control ( unless that is no longer the case ) then the morning after pill should fall under the same category and be treated the same way. And if regular birth control medication is now available without parental concent, then this is again no different.

I think that the reason for most of the argument against this particular pill is due to not understanding it from a medical standpoint. And it is understandable, but people should research instead of being spoonfed what their opinion should be. As far as availability, it should be treated as any birth control pill in regard to age.
Otherwise it should be available freely.


----------



## K-man (Jun 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Problem I have is by making this available to kids.  Has it been properly tested for long term effects on a teenager?  Body chemesty is different between adults and teens.  If my daughter is able to buy these pills without my knowledge and something happens medically and I don't know she took these pills it could potentially cause a dangerous situation.  If you over 18 and something happens well that's on you and you assume the risk.  A 15 year old doesn't understand the risk.  A 15 year old buys condoms they won't die but taking a medication opens the possibility an adult should be notified


This method of post coital contraception has been available unofficially for over 40 years. The more recent form only became available from a pharmacist about ten years ago and there are certain procedures in place before it can be sold including advice and possible referral. However, if a young girl is old enough to be having intercourse then she should safely be able to take the 'morning after' pill. The US has a different system of regulating drugs that divides them into prescription only and available anywhere. Australia has a couple of extra schedules that restrict some drugs to be available from pharmacies under the supervision of a pharmacist. If we look at your example of using a condom and it breaks or comes off, then even though the couple has taken responsible precautions there is the chance of an unwanted pregnancy. This pill helps safeguard against this.  

The point that some people seem to be missing is that this pill is not just for kids. There are many women of older age taking it as well if needed. The fact that it has been released for open sale in the US shows that the FDA considers the risk of young people taking it to be much less than the risk of an unplanned pregnancy.



> *Is it dangerous to use?*
> Not at all. *If anybody tells you that it has 'lots of side-effects' or 'makes you dreadfully sick', don't believe them. *An older form of PCP used in the 1990s did often cause severe nausea, but today's post-coital pills cause very little trouble.
> Personally, I have never seen any severe side-effects from either type of PCP. But you can find more details about possible side-effects from the package leaflet.
> 
> http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/morningafterpill.htm


:asian:


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 13, 2013)

I'm not missing the point its available to adults.  I don't give a flying crap heap about an adult having access to it.  I have issues with kids taking them without a parents permission.  You may be OK with it I'm not.  

So how much of the drug testing that you claim is safe was tested on teens?  What restrictions are going to be put on them?  Can a 13 year old girl go buy them no questions asked?  If so what safeguards will be in place to make sure they are being used properly?  If an adult screws up oh well she should have read the directions better.  A kid screw it up who's at fault then?  
I can't buy cold meds without showing and having my ID scanned but my child can go buy this drug no questions asked?  I question the reasons behind this decision as well it seems more political pressure then actual drug research.  It is what it is the Govt is going to do what it wants anyway so at this point it doesn't much matter what I or anyone else thinks.


----------



## K-man (Jun 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not missing the point its available to adults.  I don't give a flying crap heap about an adult having access to it.  I have issues with kids taking them without a parents permission.  You may be OK with it I'm not.
> 
> So how much of the drug testing that you claim is safe was tested on teens?  What restrictions are going to be put on them?  Can a 13 year old girl go buy them no questions asked?  If so what safeguards will be in place to make sure they are being used properly?  If an adult screws up oh well she should have read the directions better.  A kid screw it up who's at fault then?
> I can't buy cold meds without showing and having my ID scanned but my child can go buy this drug no questions asked?  I question the reasons behind this decision as well it seems more political pressure then actual drug research.  It is what it is the Govt is going to do what it wants anyway so at this point it doesn't much matter what I or anyone else thinks.


I wasn't suggesting you had missed the point of it, and yes, I am OK with it. I am even more OK with it because medicines are more controlled here than in the US and the person purchasing the medication is going to get proper advice on how to use it.. But regardless of that, I would rather my child have access to post coital contraception than have an unwanted pregnancy, but I suppose your OK with that. The fact that a 13 yo could purchase the product without questions being asked is the fault of your system, not the fault of the product. And, you *can* buy cold meds without ID.  There are dozens of products available for self selection. The fact that most of them are totally ineffectual is again the fault of the system. The ones that require ID are the ones that can be turned into amphetamine, nothing to do with drug research, and it is ironic that they are the effective products. As I said previously, this medication has been available for over 40 years and has been shown to be safe and relatively free of adverse effects. It is the same drug that has been available in implant form and used in institutions for decades.  

I can't believe how you guys blame your government for everything.  They make a product available to help prevent unwanted pregnancy and you blame the government. If the government restricted the availability and the rate of unwanted pregnancies increased other people would be blaming the government for not making available a safe and reliable medication. Educate children by all means but you will still have young people having sex without contraception, even in the strictest families. If the kids discussed with their parents that they were having sex I am sure the parents would give permission for them to use a contraceptive. The fact is, most children don't discuss their sex lives with their parents and would not be asking their parents for permission to buy the morning after pill. In that case they would probably wait for their missed period then maybe seek an abortion.  Do you think that is a better option? :asian:


----------



## Steve (Jun 13, 2013)

I don't get it.  Back in 1985 I bought a box of condoms at 14 years old.  My parents weren't there.  I don't see how this is different.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 13, 2013)

Steve said:


> I don't get it.  Back in 1985 I bought a box of condoms at 14 years old.  My parents weren't there.  I don't see how this is different.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Because a box of condoms isn't a medication that has side effects.  If an adult takes them that's fine you understand the risk.  I'm responsible for my child and her health.  She shouldn't be allowed to buy medications with out a parents consent.  Kids are kids they do stupid things and are not responsible enough to take medications without adult supervision.  I can easily see a girl saying well of one pill will work then I get 5 to make 100% sure I don't have a baby.  If an 18 year old says that fine but a 13 year old isn't smart enough to make the choice.  
I don't care if they hand the crap out at every bar in the US here's your beer and your oops I made a bad choice pill as long as your an adult.  I disagree with kids being able to buy it without permission.  
A 13 year old takes it and has a reaction to it.  If I didn't even know she took a medication it could delay the proper treatment causing permenant health effects or worse.
Im not sure how you dont see a difference between a condom and a medication.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 13, 2013)

K-man said:


> I wasn't suggesting you had missed the point of it



So when you said the point being missed is the pill is not just for kids what did you mean?


> , and yes, I am OK with it. I am even more OK with it because medicines are more controlled here than in the US and the person purchasing the medication is going to get proper advice on how to use it.. But regardless of that,  I would rather my child have access to post coital contraception than have an unwanted pregnancy, but I suppose your OK with that.


Who said I wanted to prevent a child access to anything?  I said as a parent I have a responsibility to care for my child and that includes medical care.  I never once said children shouldn't have access to it.  I said they shouldn't have access with out parents consent.  Big difference.



> The fact that a 13 yo could purchase the product without questions being asked is the fault of your system,



How's it work in your system.  If your daughter wants this medication can she just walk up to a vending machine and buy it or walk into the local drug store and buy it?



> not the fault of the product. And, you *can* buy cold meds without ID.  There are dozens of products available for self selection. The fact that most of them are totally ineffectual is again the fault of the system. The ones that require ID are the ones that can be turned into amphetamine, nothing to do with drug research, and it is ironic that they are the effective products.


And the fact still remains of I want to buy cold medicine I must show ID.  Yet a 13 yr old doesn't for this.  


> As I said previously, this medication has been available for over 40 years and has been shown to be safe and relatively free of adverse effects. It is the same drug that has been available in implant form and used in institutions for decades.


Thats great but it  still has risks.  As a parent its my responsibility to decide if the risk is worth it to my child.



> I can't believe how you guys blame your government for everything.  They make a product available to help prevent unwanted pregnancy and you blame the government. If the government restricted the availability and the rate of unwanted pregnancies increased other people would be blaming the government for not making available a safe and reliable medication. Educate children by all means but you will still have young people having sex without contraception, even in the strictest families. If the kids discussed with their parents that they were having sex I am sure the parents would give permission for them to use a contraceptive. The fact is, most children don't discuss their sex lives with their parents and would not be asking their parents for permission to buy the morning after pill. In that case they would probably wait for their missed period then maybe seek an abortion.  Do you think that is a better option? :asian:


I think regardless of what option is better its my kid and as a parent its my choice.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2013)

elder999 said:


> And, not as a medical professional, but as the father of a daughter whom I love very much, I'm glad that this pill will be readily available for girls who-for a variety of reasons-might need it but not feel comfortable asking their parents to get it. As a parent, I raised my kids to make their own informed decisions, and didn't put my head in the sand about what they might or might not be doing, or getting away with-nor did I watch them 24/7 and curtail their normal social development-I didn't have the luxury of that sort of time-I had to trust them. That trust paid off, I think-but I don't know if my daughter ever had an abortion, or if she's ever even had sex with a member of the opposite sex, for that matter.



I want to echo this point, because I as a father of a daughter who could be faced with such decisions, I'd like her to have the tools to shape the life that she wants.  Sex is going to be a part of that life and the idea that I can control that or her is an illusion.  I can take her to the store and teach her about condoms.  We can go to the doctor and discuss birth control pills.  We can talk about healthy sexual relationships and try and understand what those look like.  This is just another thing that will become part of the conversation.

Regarding the religious mores surrounding birth control, this is something that really puts me in a twist.  The Catholic Church opposes birth control because they want people to make more Catholics.  The logic of the Church's position is laughable, especially since they teach Natural Family Planning.  This method allows for a woman to recognize the signs that indicate when she is fertile and when she shouldn't have vaginal sex.  It's important to note here that even the Priests understand that every time the penis and vagina touch, a baby isn't possible.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> If an 18 year old says that fine but a 13 year old isn't smart enough to make the choice.



13 year olds are smart enough to make the choice if you give them the information to make the choice.  People always treat the 18th birthday like it's some magical line and rational thought begins there.  This simply is not the case.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> 13 year olds are smart enough to make the choice if you give them the information to make the choice.  People always treat the 18th birthday like it's some magical line and rational thought begins there.  This simply is not the case.


They are not old enough to make decisions on heathcare.  Kids are kids.  These medications have side effects.  A 13 year old isn't able to decide risk vs reward of these side effects.  I've never once said the medication shouldn't be available.  I said a child shouldn't have access with out parents permission.  If a 13 year old capable of caring for herself then why can't she do other things for herself like get a tattoo or even ears pierced with out permission?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> If a 13 year old capable of caring for herself then why can't she do other things for herself like get a tattoo or even ears pierced with out permission?



Who says they aren't capable of making those decisions? Just because the government draws a magic line in the developmental sand, doesn't mean that this line actually describes something in reality. Perhaps it's never occurred to you, but 13 is considered the beginning of adulthood in many cultures.  Also, according to Piagetian Developmental Stages, it's the age that most children develop a truly adult mind. 

Perhaps our culture retards this process with it's arbitrary rules and ridiculous expectations? Perhaps childhood is artificially extended and the angst of adolescence is simply a reaction to this?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Who says they aren't capable of making those decisions? Just because the government draws a magic line in the developmental sand, doesn't mean that this line actually describes something in reality. Perhaps it's never occurred to you, but 13 is considered the beginning of adulthood in many cultures.  Also, according to Piagetian Developmental Stages, it's the age that most children develop a truly adult mind.
> 
> Perhaps our culture retards this process with it's arbitrary rules and ridiculous expectations? Perhaps childhood is artificially extended and the angst of adolescence is simply a reaction to this?



Thats all fine and good maybe some are smart enough to make that choice but the law, which is all we can go by, says Im responsible for my kids.  My 13 year old goes out and vandalizes someones property Im responsible for paying to fix it.   My 13 year old cant get a cell phone contract because they are not legally mature enough to enter into a contract, but shes smart enough to make serious medical choices without a parents consent?


----------



## Steve (Jun 13, 2013)

Hey, I was going to respond earlier today and I see that the conversation has progressed somewhat. I just want to throw out there that I see this as being a larger social issue than contraception.  I see the reality that kids are stupid and should be given as many "outs" as possible so that the mistakes they make (and they all make them) are not going to do lasting damage to their lives.

Contraception is, in my opinion, a MUCH better alternative to unwanted pregnancy than abortion.  And this pill is contraception.  It prevents unwanted pregnancy.

As for the larger issue, which I think is much, much more important, is the oversexualization of kids, particularly girls, and the pervasive and unrestricted access to porn which gives kids a skewed impression of sex and sexual roles.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Thats all fine and good maybe some are smart enough to make that choice but the law, which is all we can go by, says Im responsible for my kids.  My 13 year old goes out and vandalizes someones property Im responsible for paying to fix it.   My 13 year old cant get a cell phone contract because they are not legally mature enough to enter into a contract, but shes smart enough to make serious medical choices without a parents consent?



The idea that society would "allow" an individual to do anything is a fundamental pillar of socialism. Both Republicans and Democrats accept this premise and I think this brings forth a fundamental irony in our politics. Arguing about the particulars of what should be allowed when is the kind of collectivist rhetorical trap partisans have fallen into.

I think we should let the information flow freely and let responsible people make decisions for themselves.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The idea that society would "allow" an individual to do anything is a fundamental pillar of socialism. Both Republicans and Democrats accept this premise and I think this brings forth a fundamental irony in our politics. Arguing about the particulars of what should be allowed when is the kind of collectivist rhetorical trap partisans have fallen into.
> 
> I think we should let the information flow freely and let responsible people make decisions for themselves.


So then why put age limits on anything?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2013)

Steve said:


> As for the larger issue, which I think is much, much more important, is the oversexualization of kids, particularly girls, and the pervasive and unrestricted access to porn which gives kids a skewed impression of sex and sexual roles.



This is another place where this issue intersects with the science of human development. Sexual maturity intersected with adulthood in the past and culture had a much different view of sex, but when society makes rules that push adulthood away from sexual maturity, sexuality in young individuals becomes inappropriate because of the artificial extension of childhood. This has had all sorts of unintended consequences,IMO. Basically, our society is at war with our biology when we restrict youth from sexual behavior. It would be far more harmonious to accept that sexuality grows from puberty and prepare children accordingly.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So then why put age limits on anything?



Why indeed? Arbitrary age limits discount responsibility and growth.


----------



## Steve (Jun 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> This is another place where this issue intersects with the science of human development. Sexual maturity intersected with adulthood in the past and culture had a much different view of sex, but when society makes rules that push adulthood away from sexual maturity, sexuality in young individuals becomes inappropriate because of the artificial extension of childhood. This has had all sorts of unintended consequences,IMO. Basically, our society is at war with our biology when we restrict youth from sexual behavior. It would be far more harmonious to accept that sexuality grows from puberty and prepare children accordingly.


I'm talking about sexualization well before sexual maturity.  As in, young girls wearing makeup and hot pants, thongs, and marketing sexuality to them as young as toddlers.


----------



## Steve (Jun 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Why indeed? Arbitrary age limits discount responsibility and growth.


There have always been rites of passage and arbitrary demarcations between youth and adulthood as long as people have been banding together.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2013)

Steve said:


> I'm talking about sexualization well before sexual maturity.  As in, young girls wearing makeup and hot pants, thongs, and marketing sexuality to them as young as toddlers.



I figured you were and I think more discretion there is appropriate, but many seem to want to apply these same standards to teenagers and that doesn't jive with human biology.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2013)

Steve said:


> There have always been rites of passage and arbitrary demarcations between youth and adulthood as long as people have been banding together.



In the past, these demarcations were far from arbitrary. They followed biologic markers surrounding puberty. It is only recently that childhood has been artificially extended.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 13, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> In the past, these demarcations were far from arbitrary. They followed biologic markers surrounding puberty. It is only recently that childhood has been artificially extended.



Its extend because we don't need 12 year olds being married off and pregnant.  We live longer and are healthier then ever before.  We dont need 10 year olds in the army times are different.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its extend because we don't need 12 year olds being married off and pregnant.  We live longer and are healthier then ever before.  We dont need 10 year olds in the army times are different.



True, but the way our bodies work is still shaped by the past. That's not going to change anytime soon either. Some kind of compromise between our biology and the demands of modern society is needed. I don't think arbitrary rules and decrees will ever find this compromise though. It has to come from voluntary and informed consent...aka freedom.


----------



## K-man (Jun 13, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Because a box of condoms isn't a medication that has side effects.  If an adult takes them that's fine you understand the risk.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





ballen0351 said:


> So when you said the point being missed is the pill is not just for kids what did you mean?
> 
> What I said was;"The point that _*some*_ people seem to be missing is that this pill is not just for kids."  This thread has been insinuating that the product is just for young kids and shouldn't be available for them. All I was pointing out that a large range of age groups avail themselves of this product.
> 
> ...


I accept that most of us don't want our 13 year old daughters having a sexual relationship but the reality is that some are, and some are becoming pregnant. Prevention of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is a great advance on the situation we have had in the past. :asian:


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 13, 2013)

Nevermind someone will get offended and I really dont care anymore.


----------



## billc (Jun 13, 2013)

They aren't getting the sexual predator part of the post...and your points are valid Ballen, a 13 your old is still your child, not anyone elses and you are right to be concerned about side effects, or allergic reactions, or the fact that if she is secretly having sex without your knowledge that some professional, be it a doctor, or a public employee, like a school nurse, should be required to let you, her guardian, know. 

The actual focus of the post...



> But how can anyone -- _anyone_ -- defend a policy that facilitates sexual predators covering up their exploitation of young girls by simply having them purchase and take the drug?




...............................................



> 1. Your 13 year old daughter has unprotected sex and gets pregnant and you decide to go through with the pregnancy. Pretty traumatic I would have thought. Complications of pregnancy, possible loss of mother or child.



Believing a 13 year old has the capacity to make a decision impacting both her life and the life of her unborn baby...and your first grandchild...without parental guidance...it is truly a different world...



> 1. Your 13 year old daughter has unprotected sex and gets pregnant and you decide to go through with the pregnancy. Pretty traumatic I would have thought. Complications of pregnancy, possible loss of mother or child.
> 
> 2. Your 13 year old daughter has unprotected sex and gets pregnant and you decide not to proceed with the pregnancy. You decide on termination (abortion). Even more traumatic and possibility of infection or worse. Then a lifetime of guilt.



At this point I don't believe the parents have any say in what the 13 year old can do.  She can go to an abortion clinic and have an abortion...without parental consent. Or is the law different?

http://parentingteens.about.com/od/teenpregnancy/f/abortionlaws.htm



> The answer depends on the state in which you live. Some states require notification of the teenâ&#8364;&#8482;s parents, some require consent from one or both parents and some states have no policy. In the states with no policy, there is no consent or notification needed. A 13-year-old can get an abortion without notification to her parents.
> Some states require an adult in the family to give consent, not necessarily the parent of the teen mother. It could be an aunt, uncle or older sibling. States that have the parental consent laws also have judicial bypass laws that would help teen girls who cannot obtain parental consent because of foster care situation or other problems.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## billc (Jun 13, 2013)

> 3. Your 13 year old daughter has unprotected sex and takes a pill the next day and has her normal period shortly after.



Your 13 year old daughter is having unprotected sex with an older sexual predator, say a teacher, or a coach, or a friends adult relative, and to hide this from you she and her predator, who she may think she is in love with, or he may just be intimidating her into having sex,  are using the plan b pill to keep her from getting pregnant, and since she doesn't have to involve a doctor in the "process," of acquiring the pill, they can hide the relationship much more easily than in the past.  Also, the predator doesn't have to worry that pregnancy will make his job of assaulting your daughter more difficult...he doesn't have to worry about that complication and can devote more energy to manipulating your daughter...


----------



## Steve (Jun 13, 2013)

billc said:


> They aren't getting the sexual predator part of the post...


I think most everyone does and recognizes it as a lame attempt to stir up trouble.  





> and your points are valid Ballen, a 13 your old is still your child, not anyone elses and you are right to be concerned about side effects, or allergic reactions, or the fact that if she is secretly having sex without your knowledge that some professional, be it a doctor, or a public employee, like a school nurse, should be required to let you, her guardian, know.


All the while you guys both ignore the fact that your 13 year old daughter is secretly having sex without your knowledge...  doesn't that seem like the REAL problem here?  Or at least A real problem?  Nevermind the idea that IF she is secretly having sex without your knowledge, you are advocating that she become a mom over making what might be the first mature decision she's made so far, which is to use a contraceptive... even if it is a day late.  

I'll say this, Bill.  We all have priorities and a sense of how we want to make decisions, but (and this is just my opinion), your ability to make a good decision is very, very questionable.  Your priorities are incredibly suspect. 


> The actual focus of the post...


... was to start a fight.  And as usual, you started it and then let other people fight it for you.  





> Believing a 13 year old has the capacity to make a decision impacting both her life and the life of her unborn baby...and your first grandchild...without parental guidance...it is truly a different world...


There's no baby if there's no pregnancy.  Or is penetration the point at which life begins now?  Or is there a proximity between the penis and the vagina at which life begins?  You understand that this is a contraceptive.  Don't you?  You must.  





> At this point I don't believe the parents have any say in what the 13 year old can do.  She can go to an abortion clinic and have an abortion...without parental consent. Or is the law different?


And, speaking as a parent, if the only influence you have with your 13 year old is legal influence, you're a very, very poor parent, indeed.  Kids make mistakes.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 13, 2013)

billc said:


> .
> 
> The actual focus of the post...



...is a bat$h^t looney crock of B.S.
:lfao: It's a miserable, illogical canard, masquerading as sanity.

No predator is going to rape a girl and then force her to take a "morning after pill." He's just gonna strangle her after raping her, or let her go. If he....."seduced" her, she's gonna do what he says willingly, and won't need forcing or drain cleaner.




billc said:


> .
> 
> Believing a 13 year old has the capacity to make a decision impacting both her life and the life of her unborn baby...and your first grandchild...without parental guidance...it is truly a different world...
> 
> ...



I don't recall my parents having any say in any of the nefarious stuff (that was actually my nickname for a while, _Nefarious_... couldn't have been any cooler if I'd picked it out! :lfao: )that I did over the years.....I really can't recall:

asking their permission.

or apologizing afterward.

*or* thinking too much about the consequences......including becoming sexually active, staying sexually active, or having a rather delightful summer-long affair with the middle-aged lady whose pool I was cleaning for the summer of '75....:lfao:

of course, I'm a guy-the worst thing I got out of that besides some stories to not really tell, was a halfway decent song-lyric....:lfao:......if it had been available, though, and I'd been thinking about such things, I might have picked up the "morning after pill...." glad that it's available for my daughter, and 13 year old rape victims, and 13 year old girls who realize they've made a mistake (I do remember making a few of those when I was a teenager-one of them probably was, in fact, Mrs. Rosenthal......:lfao: )

In all seriousness, regardless of what you think about the ability of a 13 to make a decision about having sex, or getting pregnant, it really doesn't matter, Bill. 

What matters is that *you* can't get pregnant. *Ever*.......I can only guess about the "having sex" part, and it's not pretty....:barf: 

:lfao:

Seriously, a 13 year old girl who has decided to have sex is pretty much going to....there won't be anyone there to stop her, and she doesn't necessarily have to be running wild in the streets. I was "deflowered:" (can a guy say that if he isn't talking about having his anus penetrated? Probably not...let me rephrase that.....:lfao:...) I _lost my virginity_(  ) when I was 14 to a girl who was nearly 18.......on a bet. I was in boarding school, it was a Saturday night, and there was *no one* there to make that decision for me *but* me. Of course, I was more than willing, and, back then-it was no big deal. Today, of course, she'd be a rapist or predator.....:lfao:.......probably back then, too, if my mom had known about it....:lfao:

....:lfao:...... I can just see it now, me on the corridor with the payphone ('cause nobody had cell-phones back in '74...) _Ma....ma.....can I have your permission to have sex with a really hot 18 year old?_. Mrs. Cuffee would have driven up there and torn the Hotchkiss School down brick by brick......:lfao:.....and hell, even if she just said "No," I'd have gone and done it anyway.....:good thing *I* didn't need a "morning after pill...: :lfao:.....I mean, _seriously, dude_....:lfao:...you crack me up!

(_Mom, mom.....I know I don't have the capacity to make decisions about having sex or any potentially possible unborn children as yet not-conceived..._( :lfao: )_...but, *can I have sex, Ma*_*?....No, not with you!.....though I can think of a few women your age that I'd go for....in fact, these days I can't think of any women I wouldn't go for.....except for you....[/I]  :lfao:

I mean.....:lfao:......just...:lfao:*


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> I think most everyone does and recognizes it as a lame attempt to stir up trouble.  All the while you guys both ignore the fact that your 13 year old daughter is secretly having sex without your knowledge...  doesn't that seem like the REAL problem here?  Or at least A real problem?  Nevermind the idea that IF she is secretly having sex without your knowledge, you are advocating that she become a mom over making what might be the first mature decision she's made so far, which is to use a contraceptive... even if it is a day late.


It is a problem.  We just have different solutions.  Yours is Oh well do whatever you want as long as I dont know about it and you dont get pregnant I dont care.  Well I do care I need to know about it and if you take a little time to be a parent its not hard to find out what your kids are and are not doing behind your back.  

This attitude you and others are showing of "well as long as I dont know about it" is the same attitude that causes me to show up at your door at 3AM telling you we found your kid dead.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 14, 2013)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
MT Asst. Administrator*


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 14, 2013)

elder999 said:


> at matters is that *you* can't get pregnant. *Ever*.......I can only guess about the "having sex" part, and it's not pretty....:barf:


So its ok on this site to make fun of someones sex life huh.  I didnt know acting like an *** hole was ok here.  Im out you guys can ban me or whatever you want


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So its ok on this site to make fun of someones sex life huh.  I didnt know acting like an *** hole was ok here.  Im out you guys can ban me or whatever you want



Agreed, so lets move on shall we?

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Adolescence-Rediscovering-Adult/dp/188495670X

This is a book that I think all parents of teenagers or potential parents of teenagers should read.  It will save people a lot of grief.  



> This groundbreaking book argues that adolescence is an unnecessary period of life that people are better off without. Robert Epstein, former editor in chief of Psychology Today, shows that teen turmoil is caused by outmoded systems put in place a century ago which destroyed the continuum between childhood and adulthood. Where this continuum still exists in other countries, there is no adolescence. Isolated from adults, American teens learn everything they know from their media-dominated peers the last people on earth they should be learning from, says Epstein. Epstein explains that our teens are highly capable in some ways more capable than adults and argues strongly against infantilizing young people. We must rediscover the adult in every teen, he says, by giving young people adult authority and responsibility as soon as they can demonstrate readiness. This landmark book will change the thinking about teens for decades to come.


----------



## Steve (Jun 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> It is a problem.  We just have different solutions.  Yours is Oh well do whatever you want as long as I dont know about it and you dont get pregnant I dont care.


That is certainly not my solution.  My solution is to be realistic about the current situation and then work to improve it.  On the one hand, we need to be better parents, more consistent, more involved and more supportive in all ways.  On the other, we have to protect society from those parents who will fail at the above.   When a kid is having sex at 13 years old, there are a lot of emotional and physical things to deal with as a parent.  When a kid is SECRETLY having sex at 13 years old, the issue isn't the sex.





> Well I do care I need to know about it and if you take a little time to be a parent its not hard to find out what your kids are and are not doing behind your back.


But you missed the salient point, ballen.  You don't know.  You ALREADY don't know because you have spent 13 years raising a child that feels like she has to sneak around and do things behind your back.  





> This attitude you and others are showing of "well as long as I dont know about it" is the same attitude that causes me to show up at your door at 3AM telling you we found your kid dead.


The kid that is doing things in secret will do things in secret.  The question isn't should the child take a contraceptive without the parent's knowledge.  The right questions are, WHY does this child feel like she needs to solve big problems alone, without help from her parents?  Why does this child feel backed into a corner without having a parent to talk to?  Why is this child sneaking around at 13 and hiding big things from her parents?

You're doing a lot of judging and presuming that I'm ho hum about this.  I understand that you hold your positions because you're concerned.  If you don't reciprocate this respect, I don't know that we can have a constructive conversation about this.  I can assure you that parenting is something I think about ALL THE TIME.  I am very concerned about what my kids do, and it's precisely because I'm concerned.  And there's not "as long as I don't know about it."  Rather, it's acknowledging that some (many) parents drop the ball.  Their kids get backed into a corner, and as I said before, using contraception is a MATURE decision.  It's a smart decision.  But that's not the real issue.  The real issue, in my opinion, is why don't your kids trust you? (not "you" ballen, but in general)

Finally, let's be clear about this.  Your alarmist handwringing is unconstructive.  We're not talking about kids dead at 3 am.  We're talking about contraception.  You're trying to mix it all up, just as billc did, with atrocities like pedophilia and murder.  These are red herrings in a dicussion about contraception.   The morning after pill is neither a cause or solution to pedophilia, nor is it a reason why your kids will be murdered at 3am.  It's kids having sex and lying about it to their parents.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> Finally, let's be clear about this.  Your alarmist handwringing is unconstructive.  We're not talking about kids dead at 3 am.  We're talking about contraception.  You're trying to mix it all up, just as billc did, with atrocities like pedophilia and murder.  These are red herrings in a dicussion about contraception.   The morning after pill is neither a cause or solution to pedophilia, nor is it a reason why your kids will be murdered at 3am.  It's kids having sex and lying about it to their parents.


Sure lets be clear about this.  I have personally had to tell a parent we found there 14 year old dead from a drug OD.  You know what the parents said to me "He was doing it behind our backs what were we supposed to do"  SAME attitude I hear about this topic.  So Im not mixing anything up.  Its a condemnation of this attitude I see with parents that feed me that same BS line all the time.  We don't know so what can we do.  If your 13 year old can outsmart you then we have bigger problems then this.  Kid lives in my house , I pay her bills, then I will check her phones, texts, facebook accounts, ect.  Its my job to know what they are doing at all times.  I don't care if she trusts me at 13 she will thank me at 33.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Sure lets be clear about this.  I have personally had to tell a parent we found there 14 year old dead from a drug OD.  You know what the parents said to me "He was doing it behind our backs what were we supposed to do"  SAME attitude I hear about this topic.  So Im not mixing anything up.  Its a condemnation of this attitude I see with parents that feed me that same BS line all the time.  We don't know so what can we do.  If your 13 year old can outsmart you then we have bigger problems then this.  Kid lives in my house , I pay her bills, then I will check her phones, texts, facebook accounts, ect.  Its my job to know what they are doing at all times.  I don't care if she trusts me at 13 she will thank me at 33.



No amount of tyranny will give a person complete control. Parental tyranny is no different.  Those children who get hurt through the poor guidance of their parents were not slain by freedom. They got hurt because of pitiful lazy parenting.  The people who blame society, who say it's to free, to permissive, to liberal are simply trying to dodge their own responsibility...or perhaps their future responsibility in such matters.

This pill is a tool. It's far less dangerous than other tools, like a gun, and perhaps it's more useful. With any tool, it's the parents responsibility to teach.  I don't want the State to restrict this tool any more than I want the State to restrict other tools, like guns.

Oh the irony...


----------



## billc (Jun 14, 2013)

I don't believe any one here said to restrict access...to adults...just 13 year olds, or younger,  who can't get an asprin in school without a parents permission,  but can use this pill to hide sexual conduct without having to deal with a medical professional or parents...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So its ok on this site to make fun of someones sex life huh. I didnt know acting like an *** hole was ok here. Im out you guys can ban me or whatever you want



Really? That's really all you got out of what I posted, that I was "acting like an *** hole" (I *was*.) and "making fun of someone's sex life"? I was *not*, as I'll explain....look at the statement, "I can only guess about the 'having sex' part," and that much is true.....as for the rest of it, well, I have an aversion to imagining just about anyone besides myself having sex.....porn doesn't usually arouse me-at best, it makes me laugh......when I meet a couple, male and female, female and female., male and male, the last thing I can think of is the "having sex" part-*it's usually not pretty*, so I don't go there....I don't know that anyone actually does, but there have been times when I have-I have an extra active imagination-and it's....._distressing_. As for Bill, yes, I'll ridicule his posts, when they're like this one, and completely worthy of ridicule, but I know next to nothing about him-I mean, I almost took a job at Fermi lab, instead of where I am now, in order to satisfy my tremendous man crush on him, but that's just my over-active imagination at work again....:lfao:

Seriously, though, the premise of the article from the original post is simply flawed-this isn't about "predators," who could use condoms, or _simply groom a young girl to get birth control pills from Planned Parenthood._ 

It is a stupid, stupid, extra-stupid, alarmist article-specious rainbows of garbage. Sure, if you're against abortion, you're against this pill, which is really only meant for the first three days after unprotected sex, and simply makes the uterus inhospitable for implantation-I guess, if an egg has been fertilized, and a female does take this pill, you could call it an abortion of sorts,_ but how would you know_? I mean, the article is not just stupid, but ugly in its stupidity and alarmism. It-unlike other topics here-is not even worthy of discussion-it is only worthy of ridicule-and _so is anyone who seriously wants to discuss "*the central point of the article*" _
:lfao:

This pill is an "emergency *contraceptive*" meant for females-women and girls-who have been raped, or inadvertently had unprotected sex-it's available for their peace of mind, really, since the odds of becoming pregnant from one-time unprotected sex are about 2.5%. So, discussing it as an "abortion" is silly-like that damned ninny nurse in Albuquerque who kept interfering with women's IUD's.....

Now,I raised my kids from the beginning to think for themselves-and Ronnie Reagan's words, "trust but verify" could describe my parenting style. I also made a point of always talking _with_ them, and not just *to* them-and never, as so many do, *at* them. So it was that my son could come to me and talk about his friends using recreational drugs, or drinking, and my daughter could come out to me-at a pretty young age-as a teen who was pretty sure she was a lesbian. I sometimes knew what my kids were doing, and where they were, because they told me, and I sometimes-*as is inevitable*-did not. My kids were educated and drilled on condom use, and consequences-these days, with my son's 7th wedding anniversary tomorrow, and me *still* without grandchildren, I think maybe too well, but that's really none of my business :lol:

And I could only guess when and with whom they both became sexually active, because, well, you know.....it's not pretty :barf:
:lol:


----------



## Steve (Jun 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Sure lets be clear about this.  I have personally had to tell a parent we found there 14 year old dead from a drug OD.  You know what the parents said to me "He was doing it behind our backs what were we supposed to do"  SAME attitude I hear about this topic.  So Im not mixing anything up.  Its a condemnation of this attitude I see with parents that feed me that same BS line all the time.  We don't know so what can we do.  If your 13 year old can outsmart you then we have bigger problems then this.  Kid lives in my house , I pay her bills, then I will check her phones, texts, facebook accounts, ect.  Its my job to know what they are doing at all times.  I don't care if she trusts me at 13 she will thank me at 33.


Ballen.  You ARE mixing it up because no one here is suggesting that it's okay for a kid to do things behind the parent's back.  We... well, at least* I* am suggesting that the problem is larger than sex or the use of contraception.  

Take pot or alcohol.  If a kid WANTS to get these things, they can.  They will.  Even your kids, whether you like it or not.  So, as a parent, the solution isn't the law.  That isn't a barrier if other things are broken.  The solution is to be a strong role model, to foster a real, genuine relationship built on trust, to make your kids feel safe telling you things you don't want to hear, and to (as much as possible) ensure as a parent that the mistakes that they DO make are constructive life lessons and not insurmountable shackles.  

You have a tough job.  I don't envy you and I'm sure that you deal with some very seriously effed up situations.  I appreciate the work you do and I'm glad you're doing it.  But THAT isn't THIS.


----------



## Steve (Jun 14, 2013)

billc said:


> I don't believe any one here said to restrict access...to adults...just 13 year olds, or younger,  who can't get an asprin in school without a parents permission,  but can use this pill to hide sexual conduct without having to deal with a medical professional or parents...


Well, you did mention adults in the OP.  Or does the term "adult" mean something else on extremist conservative propoganda websites quoted by the devout:

_"Of course, no *adult *male plans to get an eleven-year-old girl pregnant, *but if he does, he now has a "Plan B"* -- courtesy of the Obama administration."  _


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> Well, you did mention adults in the OP. Or does the term "adult" mean something else on extremist conservative propoganda websites quoted by the devout:
> 
> _"Of course, no *adult *male plans to get an eleven-year-old girl pregnant, *but if he does, he now has a "Plan B"* -- courtesy of the Obama administration." _



And if, in fact, Bill had proposed not permitting men on a sex criminal registry to obtain the drug, or, better yet, *all men*, since we have no use or need of it, that would be a topic worthy of discussion, instead of the fatuous and pudding-headed, alarmist glurge presented in his OP....


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2013)

billc said:


> I don't believe any one here said to restrict access...to adults...just 13 year olds, or younger,  who can't get an asprin in school without a parents permission,  but can use this pill to hide sexual conduct without having to deal with a medical professional or parents...



You still support restricted access. That is the State interfering with the lives of individuals...and in this case, completely capable individuals. If even one individual13 year old is capable of using this pill responsibly, you've trod on her rights.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 15, 2013)

Steve said:


> Ballen.  You ARE mixing it up because no one here is suggesting that it's okay for a kid to do things behind the parent's back.  We... well, at least* I* am suggesting that the problem is larger than sex or the use of contraception.
> 
> Take pot or alcohol.  If a kid WANTS to get these things, they can.  They will.  Even your kids, whether you like it or not.  So, as a parent, the solution isn't the law.  That isn't a barrier if other things are broken.  The solution is to be a strong role model, to foster a real, genuine relationship built on trust, to make your kids feel safe telling you things you don't want to hear, and to (as much as possible) ensure as a parent that the mistakes that they DO make are constructive life lessons and not insurmountable shackles.
> 
> You have a tough job.  I don't envy you and I'm sure that you deal with some very seriously effed up situations.  I appreciate the work you do and I'm glad you're doing it.  But THAT isn't THIS.



I didn't say you were OK with kids doing this I would hope no parents are OK.  You and others come across as "well they are going to do it anyway so what can we do about it". That's where we differ.  I don't want to just throw up my hands and say oh well. By making this drug available to kids with out parental consent you are basically leaving you kid out to dry.  Making them make tough life altering choices by themselves when they are not mature enough to make these choices.  
I have never once asked for no access to these pills my concern is unrestricted access to minors.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 15, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> You still support restricted access. That is the State interfering with the lives of individuals...and in this case, completely capable individuals. If even one individual13 year old is capable of using this pill responsibly, you've trod on her rights.


13 year olds don't have rights.  Sorry its how it is.  If they did they could vote, drink, not be forced to attend school, get full time jobs ect all things we as a collective society decided.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 15, 2013)

I think it comes down to different parenting styles.  1st being the "friend" parent.  Where kids are given more some times too much freedoms.  
2nd being the disciplinarian where we restrict many freedoms
3rd being the "I don't care" parents where kids basically raise themselves
4th being a combo of the above.

I was raised in the 1st and 3rd.  I made a ton of mistakes I didn't need to make had my parents been real parents andnot my friends.  I turned out OK I guess but my sisters a welfare mother with 3 kids with different dads, living off the govt and my parents.  

I trust my kids to make good choices but I will check up on them using whatever methods I have available.  I think elder said it Trust but Verify.  And in today's age of cell phone trackers and Facebook its easier then ever.  We also are very involved in everything they do.  My wife is on the PTA and at the school everyday.  I coach the kids sports teams.  We make an effort to know my kids friends and their parents.  Now I'm smart enough to know my kids will break the rules but I will know about it when it happens and deal with it


----------



## Steve (Jun 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I didn't say you were OK with kids doing this I would hope no parents are OK.  You and others come across as "well they are going to do it anyway so what can we do about it". That's where we differ.  I don't want to just throw up my hands and say oh well. By making this drug available to kids with out parental consent you are basically leaving you kid out to dry.  Making them make tough life altering choices by themselves when they are not mature enough to make these choices.


I see where you're coming from.  We just disagree a little.  I think that there are some kids making these life altering choices without any help already.  They're out there, and they don't have many choices.  At the point where Plan B comes into play, that life altering choice has already been made, which was to have unprotected sex.  The use of contraceptive is the choice that keeps their lives from being altered, even if it's a day too late.  





> I have never once asked for no access to these pills my concern is unrestricted access to minors.


I get that.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I think it comes down to different parenting styles. 1st being the "friend" parent. Where kids are given more some times too much freedoms.
> 2nd being the disciplinarian where we restrict many freedoms
> 3rd being the "I don't care" parents where kids basically raise themselves
> 4th being a combo of the above.



I kinda have to disagree with this....not so much your observations as thei lack of another classification, what I call an "engaged parent," which might be your "combo of the above," except for the whole #3 thing, "I don't care where kids basically raise themselves." I can't say that I always *knew* where my kids were as they got older, but I always _cared_. They'd earned a measure of trust in that regard, though, and they proved themselves worthy of that trust-trust that they could start making important decisions for themselves-bottom line, when  a kid is confronted with the  choice to take drugs-as an example-his parents won't be there with him to make it for him,_except in how they've raised him and taught him._ And sometimes, in spite of that, it seems, kids decide to do what their parents would never have expected them to do. Kids make mistakes, and good parents-engaged parents-allow them to make those mistakes-to be in a position to make those mistakes, and learn from them....

This drug (to sort of get back on topic) is for people who make mistakes. I also don't need to tell you that a rape victim-of any age-might be more than a little reluctant to tell their parents or the authorities. The availability of this drug will at least alleviate a few females additional anxiety: worrying that they might become pregnant because they were raped.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> 13 year olds don't have rights.  Sorry its how it is.  If they did they could vote, drink, not be forced to attend school, get full time jobs ect all things we as a collective society decided.



What if this is wrong?  What if 13 year olds deserve far more freedom than we currently "allow" them?  Childism is a new ism coming down the line.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 15, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> What if this is wrong?  What if 13 year olds deserve far more freedom than we currently "allow" them?  Childism is a new ism coming down the line.


Are you serious with this?


----------



## billc (Jun 15, 2013)

Why stop at 13?  I think klingons say when a child can hold a knife they are adults...why not apply that standard here...?  Why not 6, or 7...?  Heck, they should be allowed to drive and drink...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2013)

billc said:


> Why stop at 13? I think klingons say when a child can hold a knife they are adults...why not apply that standard here...? Why not 6, or 7...? Heck, they should be allowed to drive and drink...



Because while it's possible, it's extremely unlikely that a child under 9 or 10 could get pregnant.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Are you serious with this?



Totally serious. Children are the most oppressed group in our society. Adults can force them to do all kinds of things aganst their will and legally beat them. Adults can deny them the ability to work and own property. Adults can totally control what a child does with their body. This is a real issue.


----------



## billc (Jun 15, 2013)

> Childism is a new ism coming down the line.



Why stop at 13? I think klingons say when a child can hold a knife they are adults...why not apply that standard here...? Why not 6, or 7...? Heck, they should be allowed to drive and drink...​
​


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2013)

billc said:


> Why stop at 13? I think klingons say when a child can hold a knife they are adults...why not apply that standard here...? Why not 6, or 7...? Heck, they should be allowed to drive and drink...​​



Didn't someone already say this exact same thing???

Oh, yeah. It was *YOU!* :lfao:


----------



## ballen0351 (Jun 15, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Totally serious. Children are the most oppressed group in our society. Adults can force them to do all kinds of things aganst their will and legally beat them. Adults can deny them the ability to work and own property. Adults can totally control what a child does with their body. This is a real issue.


Wow thats Looney toon


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Wow thats Looney toon



I'm sure the same thing was said when some people claimed that dark skinned humans were people.


----------



## K-man (Jun 15, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Totally serious. Children are the most oppressed group in our society. Adults can force them to do all kinds of things aganst their will and legally beat them. Adults can deny them the ability to work and own property. Adults can totally control what a child does with their body. This is a real issue.


This thread has certainly had some interesting twists. Although I disagree with *Ballan*'s position on post coital contraception, I can understand where he is coming from. 
*
Maka*, I'm sorry but I find your position quite bizarre. For starters, you may be able to legally beat children where you live but it is classed as assault in many countries including Australia. I personally think that a quick smack at appropriate times never hurt anyone but even that is no longer allowed. All animals take a certain time to reach maturity and it depends on how you define maturity in the case of humans. Sexual maturity is not a particularly good measure. Physical maturity takes about four or five years longer and mental maturity takes even longer. Adults may be physically able to control what a child does with their body but the child has legal rights. To say that children are 'oppressed' is a really extreme statement. :asian:


----------



## K-man (Jun 15, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I'm sure the same thing was said when some people claimed that dark skinned humans were people.


Mmm! Yeah, right.  :jaw-dropping:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2013)

K-man said:


> This thread has certainly had some interesting twists. Although I disagree with *Ballan*'s position on post coital contraception, I can understand where he is coming from.
> *
> Maka*, I'm sorry but I find your position quite bizarre. For starters, you may be able to legally beat children where you live but it is classed as assault in many countries including Australia. I personally think that a quick smack at appropriate times never hurt anyone but even that is no longer allowed. All animals take a certain time to reach maturity and it depends on how you define maturity in the case of humans. Sexual maturity is not a particularly good measure. Physical maturity takes about four or five years longer and mental maturity takes even longer. Adults may be physically able to control what a child does with their body but the child has legal rights. To say that children are 'oppressed' is a really extreme statement. :asian:



I think it's a measure of how much Australians respect their children that they would not allow them to be hit. Hats off to your country, my friend...but there is still a long way to go in regards to children's rights.

For example, would you give your wife a quick smack if she didn't listen?  Of course not, because society expects you to use reason with your partner. The same expectation could also apply to children. They are capable of logic and reason at a very young age. Far younger than most people expect.

This is just one example of the kind of deep seated prejudice that people have against young humans. Take a look at the book I posted before. That tome is the most comprehensive argument about what children are capable of and when that you will find anywhere.

The bottom line is that our society has infantalized children and has artificially extended childhood. The underlying concepts for this discussion of birth control are based on an anti-child bias.

The child does not own their body, according to some people.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2013)

K-man said:


> Mmm! Yeah, right.  :jaw-dropping:



Shocking isn't it? Imagine children having the rights and responsibilities of adulthood as soon as they are capable. Imagine what that kind of trust would do to a child's self esteem.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 15, 2013)

Complete nonsense, *Maka* :chortles good naturedly:.  I nearly always appreciate your Blue Sky thinking and the 'left field' viewpoint that comes with it but you have to come down to earth sometimes or you lose all sense of perspective and reality.

I'm as Liberal as they come, much more so than what the American political slide-rule would measure as Liberal.  Even so, in my opinion, children, in the main, are unsocialised, irresponsible, animals, who only become a reasonable facsimile of 'human' through discipline.  For some that discipline need only be a stern word; for others, like me, more physical methods are necessary to smooth off the 'wild and splintered' edges.  A blanket approach can never hope to cope with the diversity of personality and nature that will manifest through the genetic lottery.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Complete nonsense, *Maka* :chortles good naturedly:.  I nearly always appreciate your Blue Sky thinking and the 'left field' viewpoint that comes with it but you have to come down to earth sometimes or you lose all sense of perspective and reality.
> 
> I'm as Liberal as they come, much more so than what the American political slide-rule would measure as Liberal.  Even so, in my opinion, children, in the main, are unsocialised, irresponsible, animals, who only become a reasonable facsimile of 'human' through discipline.  For some that discipline need only be a stern word; for others, like me, more physical methods are necessary to smooth off the 'wild and splintered' edges.  A blanket approach can never hope to cope with the diversity of personality and nature that will manifest through the genetic lottery.



I respect your opinion, Mark, but I seriously think this is a blindspot in your thinking. If we would erase children and insert any other social group into your description of children, it would be viewed as a vicious prejudice.  

The problem I think most people have with children's rights is that everyone was a child at one time. If we accept that children are rational human being capable and worthy of human rights, we must also accept that the way we were treated as children was wrong and was, in fact, an abuse of power.

This realization will redefine many personal relationships in new and painful ways. Suddenly, the father who punished you with force in the name of love...is not so loving. Suddenly, the teacher who forced you to learn, "for your own good" is not so moral. Suddenly, the State that denied you birth control because it thought that you were an "unsocialised irresponsible animal" starts to look like the violent oppressive entity it really is.

Extending full personhood to children as soon as possible and conferring all rights as soon as the child proves themselves capable is one of the fundamental reforms our society needs to make in order to make real progress toward a better society. It would give children a goal to work toward rather than have them wait until told. This would prompt children to take responsibility for their lives, rather than simply expecting an authority to tell them what to do. 

So, yes, this is a major unrealized prejudice in our culture. It's probably the one that most people are going to have the bigest problem giving up because of the personal nature of what people have to accept.


----------



## billc (Jun 15, 2013)

> If we accept that children are rational human being



See, this is where the theory falls apart...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2013)

billc said:


> See, this is where the theory falls apart...



Why? Do you have children, Bill?


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 21, 2013)

and to add to what k man said, its a load of bull because you dont need to give birth or even be pregnant to prove that assault occurred, and that so and so did it.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2013)

Wow.  Blade 96...long time no posting...good to see you again...


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 21, 2013)

billc said:


> Wow.  Blade 96...long time no posting...good to see you again...



Hi Billybob, nice to see you too  Hope you have been well? It looks like it. 



ballen0351 said:


> Because a box of condoms isn't a medication that has side effects.  If an adult takes them that's fine you understand the risk.  I'm responsible for my child and her health.  She shouldn't be allowed to buy medications with out a parents consent.  Kids are kids they do stupid things and are not responsible enough to take medications without adult supervision.  I can easily see a girl saying well of one pill will work then I get 5 to make 100% sure I don't have a baby.  If an 18 year old says that fine but a 13 year old isn't smart enough to make the choice.



Oh but they are smart enough to have a baby? which is what you lot would make her do if her biology failed her. Ohhh PUH - LEEEZE.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2013)

There is adoption.  There is leaving the infant at a fire station or hospital, no questions asked, no penalty or punishment...and the baby lives...and has a chance...or the family can help her raise the baby, the grandson or granddaughter of the grandparents...

And one day, maybe...they can meet and get to know one another when they are both ready to know each other...which won't happen if the baby is killed...


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 21, 2013)

billc said:


> There is adoption.  There is leaving the infant at a fire station or hospital, no questions asked, no penalty or punishment...and the baby lives...and has a chance...or the family can help her raise the baby, the grandson or granddaughter of the grandparents...
> 
> And one day, maybe...they can meet and get to know one another when they are both ready to know each other...which won't happen if the baby is killed...



How will that solve an unwanted pregnancy? Thats for unwanted parenting.


----------



## billc (Jun 21, 2013)

After 9 months, the unwanted pregnancy resolves itself...then if the girl or woman doesn't want the parenting part...adoption or the fire station/hospital alternative...and a life is saved...


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 21, 2013)

billc said:


> After 9 months, the unwanted pregnancy resolves itself...then if the girl or woman doesn't want the parenting part...adoption or the fire station/hospital alternative...and a life is saved...



But I dont wanna wait 9 months. I dont wanna reproduce. have kids. Ever. I have no other option but abortion if my body failed me.


----------



## K-man (Jun 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I respect your opinion, Mark, but I seriously think this is a blindspot in your thinking. If we would erase children and insert any other social group into your description of children, it would be viewed as a vicious prejudice.
> 
> The problem I think most people have with children's rights is that everyone was a child at one time. If we accept that children are rational human being capable and worthy of human rights, we must also accept that the way we were treated as children was wrong and was, in fact, an abuse of power.
> 
> ...


The issue you are ignoring is the difference between physical maturity and mental maturity. Most people would accept that physically children are maturing earlier but mentally, research suggests, takes much longer. 



> *20s and beyond*
> According to recent findings, the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s. (See J. Giedd in References.) The specific changes that follow young adulthood are not yet well studied, but it is known that they involve increased myelination and continued adding and pruning of neurons. As a number of researchers have put it, "the rental car companies have it right." The brain isn't fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car.
> http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html





> *AAMODT*: So the changes that happen between 18 and 25 are a continuation of the process that starts around puberty, and 18 year olds are about halfway through that process. Their prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed. That's the part of the brain that helps you to inhibit impulses and to plan and organize your behavior to reach a goal.
> 
> And the other part of the brain that is different in adolescence is that the brain's reward system becomes highly active right around the time of puberty and then gradually goes back to an adult level, which it reaches around age 25 and that makes adolescents and young adults more interested in entering uncertain situations to seek out and try to find whether there might be a possibility of gaining something from those situations.
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708





> The prefrontal cortex is one of the last regions of the brain to reach maturation. This delay may help to explain why some adolescents act the way they do. The so-called &#8220;executive functions&#8221; of the human prefrontal cortex include:
> 
> 
> Focusing attention
> ...



This research provides much more support for *ballen*'s point of view than yours. A thirteen year old is a child and many years off mental maturity. I don't believe a thirteen year old is capable of mature thinking but that will not stop a thirteen year old thinking they are making a sensible decision on having sex. However, if that thirteen year old is mature enough to realise she has had unprotected sex and needs to do something about it then more power to her. Give her the MAP. 

Yes children have rights but we need to differentiate between the rights of a child to enjoy that childhood and the laws that protect the child from exploitation.


Within society there are many people of limited intelligence so yes, a twelve year old child might be as bright as some of them. If you are one of those people who feel that a teenager has the same mental maturity as you, then I might suggest that you may have a problem! :asian:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2013)

billc said:


> There is adoption. There is leaving the infant at a fire station or hospital, no questions asked, no penalty or punishment...and the baby lives...and ha/s a chance...or the family can help her raise the baby, the grandson or granddaughter of the grandparents...



These are all nice ideas, and sometimes, to one degree or another, work. I've gotta say, though, I've had some odd fate in this regard: I've an adopted sister. My kids' mom was adopted. Rita-that's the wife-was adopted. In each case, to one degree or another, they have been deeply psychologically scarred by the fact of what they view as abandonment-and/or feelings of displacement-of "not belonging" in the families they grew up with. 




billc said:


> And one day, maybe...they can meet and get to know one another when they are both ready to know each other



And again, this is another "fairy tale" which doesn't always have a "happy ending" when it occurs-I think those reunnions are a little happier nowadays-in fact, such reunions are easier to arrange these days, by way of how the adoptions themselves are arranged: for my generation and my sister's, this simply wasn't true-all three women went through a fair bit of difficulty reconnecting, with varying degrees of success ranging from outright rejection to ambivalence to-in what is still something of a rarity-an immediate ongoing and deep relationship ,albeit one that has its own share of distance and ambivalence:An interview with Rita's birth mother   

In any case, adoption is an easy option to preach when you're guaranteed to never be pregnant, and



billc said:


> .which won't happen if the baby is killed...



I believe weve pretty well established that what most of us are talking about here is a pill that prevents the implantation of eight cells-eight cells _without_ a beating heart. Eight cells that might not be implanted in the uterus anyway, even if they did, in fact, occur-which someone who takes this pill will never know, whether conception ever took place of not.

No "baby." 

Plus, the premise of the OP is just downright stupid-the idea that this pill enables predators and its availability is any sort of "unintended consequence" is ridiculous.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Shocking isn't it? Imagine children having the rights and responsibilities of adulthood as soon as they are capable. Imagine what that kind of trust would do to a child's self esteem.



John, I appreciate some of your viewpoints, but this is a little OTL.....as in, "Out To Lunch." 

First off, in the Hawaiian Island thread, wasn't it you who was arguing that children belong to their parents?

Secondly, all things in nature ripen in their own time. You can no more set a child loose with the rights and responsibilities of adulthood than you can define "as soon as they are capable." For some children, this truly might be or have been as soon as you envision, for others, it might not be until well past 40......if ever. :lol:

In any case, adolescent male impulsivity being what it is, I think your idea would do a lot for population control. :lol:

I'm a fair example of this: as I've posted elsewhere,I was very much on my own from the age of 16. I wish I could say that I always made good decisions-or the right ones-but I did not. I wish I could say that it's anything but luck that I'm still vertical and breathing-given some of the decisions that I made-but it's not; it was just dumb luck in too many instances. :lol:
No, while I agree that society keeps people "children" for far too long, adolescents are simply not ready or capable for all the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. _ Some of them?_ Absolutely, on a case by case basis, but not all of them. You attempt to politicize the issue only clouds the fact that everywhere in nature, mammalian parents rear their children-they are, from the start, responsible for almost all aspects of their lives, until they achieve some sort of majority.

That's why we it's called "adulthood."


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2013)

K-man said:


> The issue you are ignoring is the difference between physical maturity and mental maturity. Most people would accept that physically children are maturing earlier but mentally, research suggests, takes much longer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In January, I went to a conference and spoke with some of the top brain scientists in the field of education and asked a couple of questions.

The first was whether or not brains were studied from outside our culture, because other comparative studies show that the sturm and drang of adolescence disappears in non-western cultures where children are given responsibilities of adults when they reach sexual maturity. The answer was no.

I followed up with another question. Do we know if the late development of brains in our culture is due to the fact that our society extends childhood or is it reflective of a natural pattern that all humans experience? Again, the answer is no. 

Again, I brought up the cross cultural studies from the book I cited earlier, because it seemed to contradict the idea that this was a natural phenomenon. Here is a summation of the answer I received. The presenter said that we needed to be very careful about making sweeping judgements. These studies show how the study groups brains are developing, but do not present a clear reason why. For kids in our culture, this might be a useful guide in describing the pattern of maturation and possibly making some predictions. 

I can accept that answer, but the idea that our society has slowed down the maturation of our children's brains, literally retarded the maturation, should get everyone to pause and think. This is not so controversial if you stop and consider your own family's history a few generations back. For example, my grandparents experienced a degree of responsibility and freedom that would probably have landed their parents in trouble with the law now days!

They grew up faster. It is evident that children evolved to grow up faster than our society allows because of where sexual maturity occurs. This retardation of maturity is completely new in our species history. Perhaps some individuals never recover from it.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> They grew up faster. It is evident that children evolved to grow up faster than our society allows because of where sexual maturity occurs. This retardation of maturity is completely new in our species history. Perhaps some individuals never recover from it.



Of course they grew up faster; they *had* to. They didn't live as long, either. It's not "retardation," it's _evolution._ Primates-mammals in general, really-rear their offspring until their offspring are capable of rearing offspring. Note that last, _*capable* of *rearing* offspring,_ not "capable of reproduction." Look to our primate cousins: most gorillas don't reach what is considered "adulthood" until between the ages of 13 and 15. Chimpanzees generally don't stray more than 15 feet from their mothers until they're about 5, and don't reach "adulthood," again, until they're between the ages of 13 and 15. Our society, though, is more complex than our primate cousins', not in the least because we have, over time, _extended our lifespan._  There is no need-or capability-for a 13-15 year old to "rear offspring" in most modern societies, and so they shouldn't have to, and have the _luxury_-rather than the burden or enslavement that you portray- of an extended developmental period. My great-grandfather went to sea at 15 to earn a living at our family's very difficult trade. While I was on my own not long after that age-for my own reasons-I'm thankful that my grandfather, father and son had no need or reason to do so....


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2013)

elder999 said:


> John, I appreciate some of your viewpoints, but this is a little OTL.....as in, "Out To Lunch."
> 
> First off, in the Hawaiian Island thread, wasn't it you who was arguing that children belong to their parents?
> 
> ...



If parents are good "stewards" of their children, see what I did there, doesn't the concept of having arbitrary lines set for the assumption of various rights and freedom, take away the actual responsibility of being a steward? Doesn't it undermine your discretion as a parent?

This is only a minor aspect of what I'm talking about, though. Consider my experience as a "child".

I was a good kid at 12. I took care of my four brothers while my parents worked, went shopping, made dinner, took care of my kid brother. I drove my grandfathers tractor safely safely and was big for my age.  My scout troop invited me on a huge backpacking trip that was a benchmark experience in my life. It was supposed to be a trip for older boys, but I had the trust of my scout leader and he had confidence in me. This built my confidence and made me want to be more mature and responsible in the future.

It also helped to set me aside from my peers in school. I remember being treated like a child in that place, demeaned and talked down to. I remember the friends who never did anything in their families and never were trusted with anything. We grew estranged by middle school and I found that I preferred the company of adults over kids my own age.

The arbitrary lines didn't work for me. The predicted adolescent development was completely wrong. This was due to the way I was raised. My parents gave me responsibility, and when I handled it, I earned that and more freedom.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If parents are good "stewards" of their children, see what I did there, doesn't the concept of having arbitrary lines set for the assumption of various rights and freedom, take away the actual responsibility of being a steward? Doesn't it undermine your discretion as a parent?
> 
> This is only a minor aspect of what I'm talking about, though. Consider my experience as a "child".



Consider *mine*: college graduate at 16, schoolteacher at *17*, student again for a few years, MIT dropout and married at 22-kids at 23, working and back to school-I've been on my own-for a bunch of different reasons-pretty much since I was 13 and went to boarding school, but _truly_ since I was 16 years old. Was I atypical? You betcha, obviously. Would I have done it any differently? Sometimes, in some ways, sure. Did I benefit from it? Yes. Did I suffer because of it? Yes. Might I have benefited from a longer "childhood"-as in," dependence upon my parents?" Yes. Might I have suffered from it? I dunno.......doesn't seem very likely.

The real point though, is that "sexual maturity" doesn't necessarily equate with "maturity," and capability, willingness, desire-and even responsibility-to act on that maturity doesn't necessarily equate with ability to participate in society as a functional adult. I mean, yeah, I was on my own, having sex when I could, and taking care of things, but all of that could have gone to hell if I hadn't been able to balance my checkbook-and, let's face it, a lot of 13 year olds can't. It all would have been for naught if I hadn't gotten up in the morning to go to *work*, and, let's face it, a lot of *40* year olds _won't_. :lol: 

There is no case for a blanket granting "adulthood" at an earlier age in modern western society; some of it should probably be "tweaked." It's a crime that an 18 year old can vote or die for his country but can't buy a goddam beer, but what are you gonna do? Adolescent impulsivity being what it is, even 21 year olds drinking are a threat to society....:lol:



Makalakumu said:


> . I remember being treated like a child in that place, demeaned and talked down to.



You, uh, _*were* a child._ You shouldn't be "demeaned and talked down to," but, unfortunately, that is a frequent adult failure-one neither my parents nor I suffered from. 


Makalakumu said:


> The arbitrary lines didn't work for me. The predicted adolescent development was completely wrong. This was due to the way I was raised. My parents gave me responsibility, and when I handled it, I earned that and more freedom.



Again, on a case by case basis, this is more than possible; the lines are just not that "arbitrary"-and there are even avenues for more freedom within the legal framework of our society-even nearly 40 years ago: a lot of people had difficulty with a high-school teacher who was high-school age, but there I was....for the most part, though, not everyone can handle "more responsibility" at an earlier age. I was outside those lines, but not everyone can live in that place, or be comfortable there-it was easier for me back then-I looked older, the "legal majority" was, in fact, 18 in New York, but I also can't say that I was completely prepared for some of the things I encountered, or that I handled them well, or in an "adult"manner.

hell, I can't say as much at 53...:lol:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Of course they grew up faster; they *had* to. They didn't live as long, either. It's not "retardation," it's _evolution._ Primates-mammals in general, really-rear their offspring until their offspring are capable of rearing offspring. Note that last, _*capable* of *rearing* offspring,_ not "capable of reproduction." Look to our primate cousins: most gorillas don't reach what is considered "adulthood" until between the ages of 13 and 15. Chimpanzees generally don't stray more than 15 feet from their mothers until they're about 5, and don't reach "adulthood," again, until they're between the ages of 13 and 15. Our society, though, is more complex than our primate cousins', not in the least because we have, over time, _extended our lifespan._  There is no need-or capability-for a 13-15 year old to "rear offspring" in most modern societies, and so they shouldn't have to, and have the _luxury_-rather than the burden or enslavement that you portray- of an extended developmental period. My great-grandfather went to sea at 15 to earn a living at our family's very difficult trade. While I was on my own not long after that age-for my own reasons-I'm thankful that my grandfather, father and son had no need or reason to do so....



There is no need for teenagers in a modern society to raise children, in fact, it's detrimental. However, this does not stop the evolutionary sexual clock from ticking. 

This same concept applies to the mind. Our ancestors grew up faster and their minds matured at a comparable rate. There is plenty of evidence for this. There is also plenty of evidence that suggests that our minds are far more flexible than our sexual drives. A teenagers mental maturity can be retarded and their sexual maturity can remain the same.

In more than one way, I think this has probably been a disaster for young people.

Yet, I hold that young people are far more capable than adults give them credit for. I regularly work with young people who desperately need to be treated like adults...and when I do this, I earn their respect.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 22, 2013)

What sort of school demeans and talks down to its pupils?  

I know that we are in different countries and I went to school almost a generation before you, *Maka* but, whilst I was expected to do as I was told and do the work I was set (even if I thought it was pointless or too easy), the school environment was one of discipline not torment.

As for teenagers being ready for responsibility, I will grant that some are and that they handle it well.  Many, however, need a lot of guiding before they get the hint.  When even simple politeness eludes them, what hope do they have of escaping the delusions of their ego?  Far too much time and effort is spent on making them feel 'special' rather than making them realise that if they want to be treated as if they have some worth then they actually have to demonstrate that they are.


----------



## billc (Jun 22, 2013)

> Far too much time and effort is spent on making them feel 'special' rather than making them realise that if they want to be treated as if they have some worth then they actually have to demonstrate that they are.​



Too many teenagers going to school today don't understand the concept of giving respect to receive it...this is one of the ways that the adults raised by the 60's generation has failed their children...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2013)

billc said:


> Too many teenagers going to school today don't understand the concept of giving respect to receive it...this is one of the ways that the adults raised by the 60's generation has failed their children...



This is a great discussion, I'm glad I can participate in it with you chaps.  There are a lot of points I'd like to address, particularly the idea that we should "tweak" the rules for majority, that teenagers can act rude and immature, and that treating our kids like they are "special" has become an issue.

What the research shows clearly is that teenagers in non-Western society transition into adulthood much faster.  What the research also shows is that brains of young people in Western society develop more slowly, often taking until the age of 25 to form adultlike patterns.  It's also clear that Western society places demands on young people that separate their assumption of adulthood and separate it from the age of sexual maturity.  These demands have infantalized our young people.  Our society is causing a lot of the problems we see in teenagers.  I guess the point I want to make is that it's not the young people's fault that they are they way they are.  It's the fault of the adults who formed and accept the society around them.

So, how does our society stop retarding the development of our young people's brains?  This is a question that I think all parents should think about and FEEL some guilt for.  Then, turn around and use this guilt to create something better for our young people.  The cure for the retardation of our young people is for adults to have higher expectations and create an environment where young people can grow into adults at a "natural" rate.

If I could rearrange society, I would do the following.

1.  Change the arbitrary lines so that teenagers who develop more abilities can accept more responsibilities as soon as they can demonstrate it.  This can be done with simple tests.  We already have a driving test in America that dips below the age of majority.  I think we could add a financial test, a marriage test, and an emancipation test that would allow a young person to completely separate from their parents.  I think most adults would actually be surprised at how much responsibility is legally withheld from teenagers.  
2.  We need to change middle and high school into a form of schooling that encourages freedom and responsibility.  This is going to completely restructure the schooling experience and it's something that I've actually put a fair amount of professional work into.
3.  We need parents to think of their young people differently.  We need parents to have higher expectations and to teach that freedom is not given, it is earned.  It should be no surprise that young people act like entitled pricks when all they have to do is laze around and reach a certain age before they get to taste freedom.  It should also come as no surprise that many cannot handle the responsibility when they get there.  Arbitrary lines provide no guidance and government schooling cannot take over the responsibilities of the parent.
4.  Ultimately, I think we need to chip away at the entitlement society we have created.  We need to tackle this idea that services are given and not earned.  Of course I'm talking about dismantling the Welfare State here.  The Entitlement Society and the problems above are tendrils of the Leviathan of government.  When society itself removes personal responsibility from adults, the young people suffer the most because now the adults are incapable of teaching them how to live.  

It doesn't surprise me that brain development in young people is retarded in this environment.  The truth is that brain development is becoming more retarded as the generations go.  This is an effect of the Welfare State.  It has infantalized everyone in it's grasp.  The good news is that adults don't have to give up their government freebies right away.  If they did 1-3 on my list, the need for the Wellfare State disappears in a few generations.


----------



## K-man (Jun 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> What the research shows clearly is that teenagers in non-Western society transition into adulthood much faster.  What the research also shows is that brains of young people in Western society develop more slowly, often taking until the age of 25 to form adultlike patterns.  It's also clear that Western society places demands on young people that separate their assumption of adulthood and separate it from the age of sexual maturity.  These demands have infantalized our young people.  Our society is causing a lot of the problems we see in teenagers.  I guess the point I want to make is that it's not the young people's fault that they are they way they are.  It's the fault of the adults who formed and accept the society around them.
> 
> Perhaps you could post reference to the research you are quoting as I cold not find anything to back your claim.
> 
> ...


This is just your theory. Personally I think it is totally wrong, but, I could be convinced if you old provide some credible evidence rather than hypothesis. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2013)

I cited a book that compiles the research. It's called The Case Against Adolescence. Check it out. I think it's a convincing argument. And you are right, the Welfare State bit is my interpretation. The author in the above cited book thinks the government should be in charge of guiding people to responsibility. Disappointing, but not surprising from a high level academic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2013)

Here is the author K-man.

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


----------



## K-man (Jun 22, 2013)

billc said:


> Too many teenagers going to school today don't understand the concept of giving respect to receive it...this is one of the ways that the adults raised by the 60's generation has failed their children...


Perhaps it is not so much the fault of the parents as he fault of society that changed substantially at that time. If I had to pinpoint just one cause it would have been the rebellion against the Vietnam War.  For virtually the first time, a generation of young people stood against authority. To reinforce that, the troops returning after serving in that war were treated appallingly and not given the support and recognition they deserved. This combination of factors caused society to change visibly as well as culturally. Respect was one of the first things to go. Parental authority was next. As a parent of that time, I can tell you, teenagers openly did what teenagers of my generation did not even think of doing. 

I don't think psychologists even existed before that time, at least in my world. Suddenly they were everywhere offering advice that was contrary to everything we had grown up with. Discipline that we had grown up with was suddenly out the door. Teachers weren't allowed to discipline children any more. Limits were removed.

I hear constantly, "It's the parent's fault", and in some cases that is demonstrably true, but on the whole, I would place the blame squarely at the feet of the liberal society we have developed. (And, for *Maka*'s benefit, before he says it's a welfare society, that is not what I am talking about.)

:asian:


----------



## K-man (Jun 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Here is the author K-man.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Epstein


Thanks for the reference. I chased that further and here is his article from Scientific American.

http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein-THE_MYTH_OF_THE_TEEN_BRAIN-Scientific_American_Mind-4-07.pdf

I'm not sure that your case is supported by his article. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that young people can achieve high levels of mental acuity at an early age and the key word, supported by the author's article is _some._

What is not challenged in the article in the notion that maturity, particularly in risk taking behaviour, does not develop until much later.

An interesting graph in the article shows the increase in laws relating to young people. It supports totally what I said in the earlier post about the radical change in society values that exploded in the 70s.

One thing he discusses is 'teen turmoil' and says this is a recent phenomena. I would agree and suggest that the reason it is not in other societies is that other societies did not throw out their family values when the Western World did.  What he does not say is that young people's brains develop to maturity quicker in other societies.

I can accept most of what Epstein says but I cannot reconcile that with your conclusions. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2013)

K-man said:


> Thanks for the reference. I chased that further and here is his article from Scientific American.
> 
> http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein-THE_MYTH_OF_THE_TEEN_BRAIN-Scientific_American_Mind-4-07.pdf
> 
> ...



Which conclusion specifically do you disagree with? If it's the bit about the Welfare State, that's something that is actually the least of my concerns. I think that if society stoped infantalizing youth and placed gaining personal responsibility as the bar for growth, we wouldn't need the Welfare State so much. People would be more self sufficient.

From a practical standpoint, this is probably what Western governments should think about. As services get more expensive and budgets crunch, reducing the need for services is a viable step toward sustainability.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2013)

K-man said:


> What is not challenged in the article in the notion that maturity, particularly in risk taking behaviour, does not develop until much later.



On the contrary, I think this notion is challenged by the article and is greatly challenged by the arguments in the book I cited.

Here is a summation.



> FAST FACTS
> Troubled Teens
> 1
> >>
> ...


----------



## K-man (Jun 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Which conclusion specifically do you disagree with? If it's the bit about the Welfare State, that's something that is actually the least of my concerns. I think that if society stoped infantalizing youth and placed gaining personal responsibility as the bar for growth, we wouldn't need the Welfare State so much. People would be more self sufficient.
> 
> From a practical standpoint, this is probably what Western governments should think about. As services get more expensive and budgets crunch, reducing the need for services is a viable step toward sustainability.


You seem to be saying that we should be giving more and more responsibility to young people as they demonstrate their capacity to deal with it. To a large extent I can agree with that. I attended a school that gave more and more responsibility as you got older. After university I went straight out managing other people's businesses at the age of 22. With hindsight I handled what I did remarkably well considering that I don't believe I was mentally mature until some years later. The conclusion I disagree with is that children are mentally mature at an early age. There is nothing in any of Epstein's articles that actually claims that anyway. 



Makalakumu said:


> On the contrary, I think this notion is challenged by the article and is greatly challenged by the arguments in the book I cited.
> 
> 
> Here is a summation.
> ...


Different animals mature at different ages and in most herd animals there is a vast difference between the 'old bull' and the 'young bull'. Even there, there seems to be a time lag between sexual maturity, physical maturity and mental maturity. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2013)

K-man said:


> The conclusion I disagree with is that children are mentally mature at an early age. There is nothing in any of Epstein's articles that actually claims that anyway.



People are going to have their own definitions for what this actually looks like and we're going to find that much of this culturally defined in the end.  The claim in the article and in the book is that a young person's mind is capable of mental maturity much earlier than most people expect.  When scientists look at brain science and anthropological studies, they find that mental maturity and sexual maturity occur at the same time in non-western cultures.  The way they define mental maturity is by looking at when the person is capable of performing adult mental tasks.  Note this says nothing about the value of wisdom or what a wiser brain looks like, it's only the baseline at which a person is capable of performing adult mental tasks.  

Surely this makes practical sense.  If sexual maturity evolved in humans at a certain age, the mental acuity to take care of children had to have developed as well.  I don't imagine that this was always perfect, surely experience counts, just as we all know, when it comes to child rearing and other adult tasks.  Anyway, the point here is that young people are being infantalized by western culture and that it is affecting their brains development.  In a creepy way, I think an analogy could be drawn between what is happening here and what the Chinese would call foot binding.  Perhaps the retardation of development can never truly be corrected?

What kind of school did you go to, btw?


----------



## K-man (Jun 23, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> People are going to have their own definitions for what this actually looks like and we're going to find that much of this culturally defined in the end.  The claim in the article and in the book is that a young person's mind is capable of mental maturity much earlier than most people expect.  *When scientists look at brain science and anthropological studies, they find that mental maturity and sexual maturity occur at the same time in non-western cultures. * The way they define mental maturity is by looking at when the person is capable of performing adult mental tasks.  Note this says nothing about the value of wisdom or what a wiser brain looks like, it's only the baseline at which a person is capable of performing adult mental tasks.
> 
> You are confusing two separate things. A child might be able to beat an adult at chess but that does not give any indication of mental maturity. Some children are sexually mature at 11 years of age. Do you really consider that that child is mentally mature? The youngest mother on record was five and a half! She was seven months pregnant when she had her baby by caesarian section. It beggers belief that you could consider that child mentally mature. And there are dozens of examples here of children under 11 having babies.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers
> 
> ...


I attended a state primary school, a secondary boarding school and a residential university college, not that that has any bearing on the discussion.    :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2013)

I think you are missing the idea that the *baseline *for mental maturity is what is being discussed.  Of course a child will continue to develop their cognitive skills as they grow older and become more skilled in those areas.  Here is another researcher that is very mainstream and provides more support for what I'm writing.

http://psychology.about.com/od/behavioralpsychology/l/bl-piaget-stages.htm



> *Piaget's Stages*
> 
> *An Overview of Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development*
> 
> ...



Note that 12 years old is the beginning of the Formal Operational Stage.  This is also the beginning of sexual maturity in most humans.  Of course there are anomalies, but on average, in "natural" populations of humans, here is where the *beginning *of both of these coincide.  Both will improve as the individual ages.


----------



## K-man (Jun 23, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I think you are missing the idea that the *baseline *for mental maturity is what is being discussed.  Of course a child will continue to develop their cognitive skills as they grow older and become more skilled in those areas.  Here is another researcher that is very mainstream and provides more support for what I'm writing.
> 
> http://psychology.about.com/od/behavioralpsychology/l/bl-piaget-stages.htm
> 
> ...


Ah, Piaget. I thought he might have been before your time but I read a lot of his ideas back in the 70s when my then wife was teaching intellectually disabled children. I would suggest his theories are at odds with your claims. His theories involved progressive changes in stages of childhood development. I would suggest, at no stage will you find anything in his work to support your hypothesis. Even where you are now saying 'baseline for mental maturity' you have no evidence to support your claims. What he is saying here is that the forth stage of development that begins about 12 years of age involves abstract thought. He gives no age at which he considers the brain to be mature. 

Turn the clock forward and recent research is showing that maturation of the brain occurs much later than 12. 



> The research has turned up some surprises, among them the discovery of striking changes taking place during the teen years. These findings have altered long-held assumptions about the timing of brain maturation. In key ways, the brain doesn&#8217;t look like that of an adult until the early 20s.
> http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-still-under-construction/index.shtml


This helps explain why the army likes to have young people serving in the front line. They haven't the capacity to realise the full extent of what they are doing. Sure they are performing an adult role but with an element of risk taking that may well change their ability to perform if they were five or ten years older.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2013)

K-man said:


> Ah, Piaget. I thought he might have been before your time but I read a lot of his ideas back in the 70s when my then wife was teaching intellectually disabled children. I would suggest his theories are at odds with your claims. His theories involved progressive changes in stages of childhood development. I would suggest, at no stage will you find anything in his work to support your hypothesis. Even where you are now saying 'baseline for mental maturity' you have no evidence to support your claims. What he is saying here is that the forth stage of development that begins about 12 years of age involves abstract thought. He gives no age at which he considers the brain to be mature.
> 
> Turn the clock forward and recent research is showing that maturation of the brain occurs much later than 12.
> 
> ...



How are you defining mental maturity? I think we are using different definitions.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 23, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> How are you defining mental maturity? I think we are using different definitions.



Doesn't matter. Those "arbitrary lines" are completely necessary.

Next week, my brother will wed again, for the fourth time, this time to a woman of 27-24 years his junior. Of course, this is perfectly legal, and, for many-if not most-morally acceptable.

On the other hand, if my brother were a young man of 36-and his bride a *girl* of 12-well, it would be a different story then, wouldn't it? What of her "sexual and mental maturity" then, or her "ability to make adult decisions responsibly?"

just sayin'. :lfao:


----------



## K-man (Jun 23, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> How are you defining mental maturity? I think we are using different definitions.


Mental maturity is the time when the human brain has fully developed physically in such a way that it allows rational thought processes to occur. 

One definition is "Adults, with an average intellectual capacity are classed as having reached mental maturity" 
 ( http://psychologydictionary.org/mental-maturity/#ixzz2X5mrCGPe ), but I would challenge that by saying many young people could achieve the average intellectual capacity of the average adult in their teen years. That is not what the latest research is showing. 
However, an interesting point of view in this article; https://www.mentalhealthpros.com/maturity.php?bk=29fee1facb2de244254aa9a0bc71eb6c0ef5726b suggests that mental maturity is not as dependent on the physical development as much as having the capacity to fulfil certain criteria.  I would suggest that very few teens would be in that category.

Either way, I would suggest, to get back to the OP, children might be physically capable of having sex. They might,with help be emotionally mature enough to even raise a child but I would contend that in no way would those kids be anywhere near mental maturity. If after having sex, a thirteen year old had the common sense to seek out the MAP, then good for her. That, to me, demonstrates a degree of maturity above her years. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2013)

K-man said:


> Mental maturity is the time when the human brain has fully developed physically in such a way that it allows rational thought processes to occur.



How is this definition different from the formal operational stage of cognitive development?


----------



## K-man (Jun 23, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> How is this definition different from the formal operational stage of cognitive development?


Well for starters the Piaget model is the beginning point of mature cognitive function, not the end point and secondly, the brain is still physically developing until the mid 20s and the later development seems to be related to the ability to make rational decisions. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2013)

K-man said:


> Well for starters the Piaget model is the beginning point of mature cognitive function, not the end point and secondly, the brain is still physically developing until the mid 20s and the later development seems to be related to the ability to make rational decisions. :asian:



Is this radically different than what I've writing?

I think if you are really interested in this matter, you should read Dr. Epstein's book.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Doesn't matter. Those "arbitrary lines" are completely necessary.
> 
> Next week, my brother will wed again, for the fourth time, this time to a woman of 27-24 years his junior. Of course, this is perfectly legal, and, for many-if not most-morally acceptable.
> 
> ...



At what general age did humans "marry" throughout human history?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 23, 2013)

"Throughout human history?"

Throughout human history, the normal condition of most of humankind has been one form of slavery or another.

Throughout human history, the normal condition of most of humankind has been constant warfare and bloodshed.

Throughout human history, the normal condition of most of humankind has been *poverty*[ and despair.

Really not interested in "throughout human history" as a model for the way things should be........just sayin'. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 23, 2013)

elder999 said:


> "Throughout human history?"
> 
> Throughout human history, the normal condition of most of humankind has been one form of slavery or another.
> 
> ...



That doesn't matter. What matters here is how our bodies evolved. So, what age?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 23, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> That doesn't matter. What matters here is how our bodies evolved. So, what age?



Are you then implying that we are merely our bodies, or how they evolved? 

It does matter. You haven't answered my question-are you implying then, that it's okay for a 44 year old man (or older) to have sex with a 12 year old girl with her consent?


----------



## K-man (Jun 23, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Is this radically different than what I've writing?


It is totally opposed. We can agree that as children get older, past say 12, their intelligence and their physical and emotional maturity increase to a level that they can function in an adult world. They still have much to learn as is demonstrated by the accident rates of young drivers ( https://www.dmv.ca.gov/teenweb/more_btn6/traffic/traffic.htm ) or the prevalence of young people involved in fights or crime in general ( https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/228479.pdf ). The research shows that mental maturity is a lifetime pursuit but that physical maturity of the brain occurs around age 25. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 24, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Are you then implying that we are merely our bodies, or how they evolved?
> 
> It does matter. You haven't answered my question-are you implying then, that it's okay for a 44 year old man (or older) to have sex with a 12 year old girl with her consent?



Lol. No, I'm not implying that. 

All I'ved asked is what general age did humans "marry" throughout human history?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 24, 2013)

K-man said:


> It is totally opposed. We can agree that as children get older, past say 12, their intelligence and their physical and emotional maturity increase to a level that they can function in an adult world. They still have much to learn as is demonstrated by the accident rates of young drivers ( https://www.dmv.ca.gov/teenweb/more_btn6/traffic/traffic.htm ) or the prevalence of young people involved in fights or crime in general ( https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/228479.pdf ). The research shows that mental maturity is a lifetime pursuit but that physical maturity of the brain occurs around age 25. :asian:



Honestly, I think you should read the book. All of these points can be looked at with a different and you'll be left with the conclusion that young people have had their mental maturation retarded by western society. In a nut shell, brain studies show what is happening to brains in response to our culture and the risk taking behavior is also an effect of retarded maturity.

The cure is responsibility and freedom. In order to allow young people to grow naturally, we need to treat them more like adults.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 26, 2013)

"Shocking isn't it? Imagine children having the rights and  responsibilities of adulthood as soon as they are capable. Imagine what  that kind of trust would do to a child's self esteem."

Rights and responsibilities of adults as soon as they are capable|? Treated like us? Whoo hoo. I always tried not to swear in front of kids til now. Thanks bud. I wont censor myself anymore. 

Sex talk here I come.


----------

