It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

QUESTION? When is a child not a child??

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
This thread may be mainly for those in the UK as i don't know how the laws and rules

of other countries relate to the following



Today in a news item the discussion was children's car seats and safety belts relating

to the Law. A CHILDS car seat was shown, that it was said was a legal requirement for

CHILDREN up to the age of 12 yrs.

Now all you parents out there will know how 'impossible' it is to get a child over the age

of 5 yrs [when they start school] into a 'special child car seat.'


Then it struck me!
...the whole incongruity of the situation of the laws of our country



Up to the age of 12 yrs old a 'CHILD' must sit in a CHILD car seat...12 months later that

same child [who cannot sanction the removal of their own tonsils or appendix] can walk

into a Chemist [not Doctors] and get the contraceptive pill, or go to the school nurse and

get the 'morning after' pill...I have a health issue on a newly pubescent girl not yet physically

or emotionally mature, hormones and emotions 'all over the place' being able to obtain that

type of medication, interferring with her hormonal balance before its even 'settled' naturally

within herself! and the long term effects of this, and becoming sexually active at such an

early age. I have read that girls who become sexually active at an early age are more

likely to develop cervical cancer. They are told every thing else but that in their sex

education lessons! So not exactly allowing them the chance of making an 'informed

descission.'


In an interview i saw the other day it was stated that although the 'age of consent' in law

is 16 yrs it was better to give a 13 yr old the pill than prosecute the 'offender' that had sex

with someone under 16 yrs!


Now i know that girls can, and do look older than they are, but 13 yrs for 16+yrs? ...

...very few.....Anyway they have to produce identity [proof of age] for buying alchol and

cigarettes so why not sex??


I know in my youth girls were protected by this law. Young men were more CAREFUL

because of the possibility of prosecution, and girls trying and succeeding to look older

and provocative were referred to as 'jail bait'




posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
However damaging the pill may be, having a baby at 13 would be far more tragic.

Also I would guess that atleast 90% of 13 year old girls who are sexualy active are sleeping with boys who are a couple of years older at the most, not much older men who the nhs is protecting from criminal charges by giving out free contraception.


edit on 29-4-2012 by lewman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Edit because I completely missed the point. Sorry!
edit on 29-4-2012 by smyleegrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by lewman
 






Were you never told when you were growing up that there were things you couldn't have

or do at any particular time because perhaps it wasn't good or approiate for you at the

time?



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Actually, I think you will find the car seat issue is more to do with height to positioning ratio whilst in a car.

As far as I was aware that was 140cm, so if my 9year old son was 140cm or more now, he wouldn't need the car seat, conversely if you have a 130cm 13 year old, you may want to keep them in the seat a little longer
But I'm sure its not compulsory, I'm gueesing its something to do with most 12 years olds being 140cm at that age.

Besides that in the eyes of the law you become an adult at 18, obviously there are teenagers below that age that can pass for even older, but them's the breaks.

When I was 13, I used to get wolf whistled by men, and I wasn't even wearing any makeup, but just goes to show perception plays a part in determining chronological age, and perceptions can be inaccurate.

Personally for me I see no problem with putting my duaghter on the pill once she reaches 13, providing she has a regular cycle (I wouldn't want her to develop problems inadvertently), and providing she completely understood, and was happy to be taking it, in conjunction I would also be explaining to her that it is illegal for her to have sex, and totally inappropriate, regardless it is better to trust, and prepare, than to dictate, and have her rebel, with me ending up the most glamorous granny alive !

For puberty is when the road to adulthood begins, kids undergo a lot of scary changes, and need our understanding and support, but they in turn need to respect and nurture our trust in them, so that we can allow them to grow into independent, responsible adults.

Oh, and when my son hits 13, he will be getting the same treatment, and a birthday box of condoms, of which I hope none shall be used for a good few years!



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by eletheia
 


Young girls are more prone to getting cervical cancer because a majority of English, Australian and NZ men in Generation X,Y & Z are not circumcised whereas 80% of American men are. Cervical cancer is at it's lowest in countries where a majority of males are circumcised.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
A child isn't a child when the law says they can take care of and make decisions for themselves. On the other hand, your child is always your child till one day you think they're grown up and they're still your child but no longer a child. Ooh, that was confusing.

I think I know what you mean though. When someone gives my 13 year old daughter the pill, you'll see me up in court on an assault charge.

Anyway it's about time someone did some realistic statistic counting of how many children were born after their mum took the pill. I have 3 grandsons, all concieved when their mum was on the pill. Know what I'm getting at?

So, if a 13 year old can't remember to wash behind her ears, or put clean knickers on every day and the dirty ones in the laundry basket instead of the floor, how can she remember to take a pill at the same time every day? (not mentioning blood clots, venereal disease, promiscuity, and the rest of it).

As for child safety seats. That was a joke on us parents, wasn't it? My daughter got too big for hers so we had to buy one of those thick child seat pad things that made her sit taller in the seat, because the LAW said so. When I saw this item for the first time I swore out loud - £20 for a square lump of f****** polystyrene?! Bloody cushion would have done.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by eletheia
 


Im not stating that underage sex is ok if your partner is of a similar age. I am merely commenting on the way the thread gives the impression that 13 year old girls sleep with perverted older men and not young teenage boys who may even be losing their virginity to a more experienced girl.

It all seemed a bit sexist imo.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
car seat for a 12 year old!!!! my 12 year old is bigger than me!!!

in canada we have a weight class for this(which is just as dumb!)
i remember sleeping in the back window of my dad's big Pontiac when i was a kid!



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by solargeddon
 





So SCRAP ALL LAWS?? even if they are there for the protection of all individuals?


My post is not about individual parenting, but about how incongruious the Law is!...



# The one who provides drink for someone under 18 yrs is proscuted there for identifaction

required.

# The one who sells cigarettes to someone under 18 yrs is also proscuted so again

identifaction required

# If a child s not in a 'proper' car seat The driver is proscuted

# If a child [age of consent being 16 yrs] has sex no repercussions.


Dosen't anyone else see the incongruity here ??
- *Not old enough to take

responsibility for one's own life, *not old enough to drink, *not old enough to smoke - but hey!

just go ahead and have sex instead.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by lewman
 




Off topic!

The thread is NOT about who 13year olds sleep with. It is about the discrepencies of

implementing the Laws that already exist!!



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by wigit
 





Touche
and star for you!!



You really have the teen ager off to a T



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by eletheia
 


If that makes you mad , then this one REALLY ought to get you going!

In the state of Texas, when your child starts high school and goes to freshman orientation they proceed to tell your child that the law says that at age 17 they can move out of their parents house and the parents can legally do nothing about it. However, even if your child legally moves out at age 17 the parents are still legally responsible for everything they do! Yes, if your child moves out at age 17 then decides to skip school you the parents have to go to court and pay hefty fines! They cause damages to someone or someone's property- the parents are legally responsible! And you can't force them to move back home. If you try, the kids can call the police and have YOU arrested! And they inform the kids about this so that they are aware of their "rights". What about the parent's rights? Guess what? You have none!

See, the UK isn't the only place with stupid laws that don't make sense!



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 




You're right that is an impossible situation
it enables a 'stropy' teen to hold you

to ransome. We all know how they like their own way
And if anything they need

boundries and discipline till they are capable of self discipline and self control!!



Makes you wonder WHO on gods earth makes these laws!!...



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
SORRY double post something went wrong will repost
edit on 29-4-2012 by eletheia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

edit on 29-4-2012 by eletheia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by lewman
 





Taken from The cancer research UK site...aboutus.cancerresearchuk.org/



Research that looked at a number of studies shows that taking 'the pill' could increase a

womans risk of developing cervical cancer. It is not clear why this is. Women on the pill are

more likely to be sexually active and so more at risk of picking up Human Papilloma Virus

and as they are less likely to use barrier contraception [condoms] which could prevent them

picking up HPV. Research suggests that among women who have taken the pill for at least

5 years the risk doubles - but this is still a small risk. (therefor a 13 year old on the pill is

already at increased risk at the ripe old age of 18 yrs!)

If she has only slept with one man, she is still at risk if he has had many sexual partners,

it increases the womans risk because it exposes her directly to sexual infections from lots

of other people (through his previous partners)

Teaching young girls about HEALTHY sexual behaviour helps to protect them from the risks.

# How to use a condom.

# How to avoid sex when they are very young

# And to reduce their number of sexual partners

# How to negoiate safe sex


All that said Do you still think it is better to give a 13 year old the pill ??


And would you STILL give YOUR 13 year old the pill ??



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join