http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Dutch_pe...o_go_political
Printable View
Do away with secret ballots, arrest anyone who votes for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by cl_out
Thats just wrong... Though I dont see how they could ever succeed with this anyways.
Well, if anyone was ever going to do it, it would have to be the Dutch. Sadly it's just something that we'll have to deal with, as people are entitled to have loathsome opinions if they want to. The best we can do is ignore them, since anything else is just free publicity.
This has made me lose all hope and want to die.
Lets put them all on an island (the members of that political party), and designate it as a "human hunting ground". That would be fun.
wow. Jess is a post icon. I never thought I'd see the day. :jess:
EDIT: hey, on second glance, I'm not so sure that is Jess.
aww, why does that have to happen on my birthday? that sucks.
sounds like a good plan to me. That's disgusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazybayman
Man, that is just so wrong... and patetic.:eep:
Eww. :(
I think I'm gonna be sick.
I think I'll go with what the Disclaimer has to say about News on Wikipedia and not believe that this is really true.
What part of the article are you denying?
I don't understand why people think it's okay for younger children to be sexually experienced or active. The human body isn't even prepared for sex that young, so why should sexual experience be encouraged?
A person's height usually reaches its maximum growth by fourteen years in girls and seventeen years in boys, and potential fertility and reproductive maturity usually reaches its peak one to two years beforehand in girls and three to four years beforehand in boys. All kinds of reproduction-assisting hormones begin flowing in the brain during this time, as well. From a strictly biological perspective, it appears evident that puberty is when we're supposed to begin getting busy.
Not that I'm for NVD, of course, but claiming that the body itself is unprepared to sex at that age seems pretty flimsy as a refutation.
I picked an icon related to the thread topic - Relm in this case :kaoplain: Actually, I can't remember how old Relm is meant to be now :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Denmark
'The Dutch Pedophile Movement'?
She's eleven at the end of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by cl_out
A group of kids should make a party and make it an anti-pedophile party. They'll get so many votes. :love:
These people are insane and twisted, it won't happen though, you'd have to be retarded to allow it. Nutters...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levian
Yeah, they've made a nice and wholesome little party, so what? It's not like they're going to actually get elected, so where's the harm, exactly? If anything, it's productive, because it lets the authorities know the identities of a group of paedophiles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
QFT Psy. QFT.
Lock them up? Hunt them on an island? Lawls @ you. They can say whatever they want. Any form of speech, any mode of address, any voiced opinion, which is legally acted upon, is thought policing.
No matter how distasteful or unpleasant or downright offensive, they have a right to express their views. It isn't until they actually go out and molest children that they're doing anything which can carry legal repercussions.
Oh, and don't say "Lol they'll never get elected", that exact complacency leads to people exactly like this getting elected.
The average female goes through menarche at 12.5 years of age. Her breasts have been growing for two years, maximum, and she has yet to flesh out in her hips and her vaginal canal probably isn't finished growing. As a result, most females who give birth at that age have to undergo Caeseran section births, or they run the risk of seriously injuring themselves. How is this pertinent? Well if you're having sex, you have to take into account "Hey, I might get knocked up!" because well, that's the main thing sex is for. Making babies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryűkishi
These days it's not uncommon for girls as young as eight or nine to hit menarche. Does this mean that the rest of their body is mature enough to engage in sexual activity or pregnancy? I would say no, they aren't old enough because their body isn't large enough nor is it physically prepared. A twelve year old? Maybe, and that's a stretch. I was pretty much finished growing by the time I was twelve, with the exception of my chest and hips.
However, this argument is based on the NVD's suggestion of 12 years of age, and not the data you provide which cites 14 as the time we should be doing the horizontal polka. In honesty, I have no problem with the idea of a mature 14 year old engaging in sexual activitiy and pornography if they choose to do so, because it ain't my sex life. In fact, I believe the age of consent in some states (I want to say Hawaii?) is around 14 or 15. But a 12 year old is not a 14 year old.
EDIT: It's Iowa where the age of consent is 14, as long as the partner of the 14 year old is withing five years of their age. Also, under extenuating circumstances, the marriagable age in Iowa is 12.
I see no reason to believe that a 12 or 14 year old is ready for sex, biologically, mentally, whatever way you want to look at it. Humans are not mature until around 18, so around 18 is what the limit should stay at.
I bet it's one of those police traps like they do here when they have stuff on the radio like "call us for assistance with your crack cocaine addiction."
I think 16 is a nice age, personally :p.
Oh yeah, and that party sucks.
Whut? I know people who have been physically mature at 15, and at 24. I know people who are mentally and emotionally mature at 14 or 15, and some who never are. Age is only a very rough indicator of maturity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris
For my part, I think 15 is a good age as long as the older person is within 3 years, and 17 is a good age to remove that restriction.
If they physically mature completely before 17, then there's something wrong. They may seem physically mature, but there's still stuff going on. I can give a detailed explaination if you really want it, but trust me. You're still maturing until at 18 or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
As for mentally, you can be very mature mentally for your age at 14 or 15, but you can't be mature. You can't be an adult until you are one. You can't have the wisdom that life gives you before you live it.
Of course age is only a very rough indicator. I fully agree. I've know many 16 year olds more mature than 20 year olds I know, but they were both immature in some ways. However, the law can't work on a case by case basis, can it? What are people losing by keeping it at 18? It's not like the police go around arresting 15 year olds having sex, and it helps protect some people who might be taken advantage of.
Generally, I don't think people 16 and under have the wisdom necessary to make good decisions in this area, and others (drinking, driving, voting, etc). Just because some people do sometimes, or some teens do all the time does not change that generally they don't. Laws should be in place to protect them from hurting themselves and others. Saying that some are mature enough is simply splitting hairs. It's irrelevant to the law.
If you guys had children, would you honestly be ok with them having sex at 14, 15? I mean jeez, that's young. You can't even have a driver's license at that age. I think past 16 you're ok, but I'd say more around 18-ish would be a better age to start engaging in sexual activity.
You should not be allowed to be doing baby-making activities until you are old enough to earn money to support them.
No matter how kind and supportive your parents or the other person are. Because some people's parents and other people aren't, and then that would be unfair.
Sure, a 14 year old might be mentaly and phisicaly mature for sex, but most won't. As we can't go and check each one individualy, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and 18 years seams to work out pretty well.Quote:
Whut? I know people who have been physically mature at 15, and at 24. I know people who are mentally and emotionally mature at 14 or 15, and some who never are. Age is only a very rough indicator of maturity.
sometimes im ashamed of where i come from
this is such a moment.
Regarding the first post thing: Yeah, that's gross.
Leeza: It was in the papers today. I think it's pretty open news all over the world, actually. Unless there's a very, very large and elaborate prank going on, I'd say that it's factual.
With regards to age, I've grown up with the 16-years-old rule and that's where I've always thought it should stay. Once you come down to it, 16 is probably the average age people first have sex all throughout the first world anyway. It seems to be the norm.
People going on about how mature you need to be need to consider the fact that some people might not give a damn about having a baby. I know it's a possibility, but it's a remote one (provided you use protection - if you don't use protection when you're that young, you wouldn't be smart enough to say 'no' anyway) - and the vast majority of 18 year olds aren't so much better off than 16 year olds that they can support kids at that age anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if an 18 year old is 95% as likely to abort as a 16 year old is. So if you're pulling the "what if they have a baby" card, then you may as well lift the legal age to 21 or something.
But no, that's not the way it is these days. People have sex for fun, and if they're smart enough to respect the legal age then hopefully they're smart enough to do it safely so they don't have to think about the baby ordeal. So long as they aren't going to suffer mental trauma from it in their future or anything like that, then I don't see the huge problem with sex-for-fun. That's why I think 16+ is fine.
This also means that society can start properly readying 16 year olds without being seen as training the underage. They're probably going to have sex at around this age anyway, parents, so you should be happy they're learning about what the hell they're getting into.
Personally, I would have never had sex at the age of 16. But that doesn't mean I don't think anyone should have the right to.
Damn the Dutch!
What a load of sick bastards... how can anyone thing this is right? Seriously... geez... what a world we live in... :confused:
Pedophiles can think this is right, because they would benefit from it. The rest of the world doesn't. Simple as that.
Speaking of Pedophiles, here's how to spot one!
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....=spot_the_pedo
By which logic I can turn around and say you're not mature until you're 50 years old. Hell, my father was about as mature as a 12 year old. You say the law doesn't/can't work on a case-by-case basis, but in this situation it does, because we tend to be sensible enough not (As you pointed out) to go arresting 15 year olds for doing it. I'd also note that at almost every point in the legal process various people have various discretions, and that the law clearly does have a case-by-case aspect to it, but that's another discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris
Of course it isn't. The law's limits are placed at the point when it is decided that the majority of people are mature enough to handle whatever it is they're being allowed to do. The entire argument rests on at what age people are considered mature enough to not cause harm to others and themselves.Quote:
Generally, I don't think people 16 and under have the wisdom necessary to make good decisions in this area, and others (drinking, driving, voting, etc). Just because some people do sometimes, or some teens do all the time does not change that generally they don't. Laws should be in place to protect them from hurting themselves and others. Saying that some are mature enough is simply splitting hairs. It's irrelevant to the law.
Edit: And it's ok to oppress a minority now?
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Denmark
...12 years old? That's more than wrong. I think 16 is a good law.
What is next? The brutal rape party?
Brutal Rape Party: "We think people should be able to beat someone over the head and have surprise sex with them when ever they feel the urge."
I actually don't know what is worse now that I think about it. Rape or sex with 8 year olds. They said they plan to move to 12 at first but then move to eliminate the age restriction.
That's freaky-deeky dutch. :(
As for age limits, it comes with each case, but generally, I think when it comes to teens and others around that age, over 3-4 years is too much. Like I said though, it comes with each case, and that can't be applied to everything. :p
"By which logic I can turn around and say you're not mature until you're 50 years old."
Except my logic has "at the end of puberty, physical maturity" to back it up, and your age is arbitrarily chosen and unreasonable.
"You say the law doesn't/can't work on a case-by-case basis, but in this situation it does, because we tend to be sensible enough not (As you pointed out) to go arresting 15 year olds for doing it."
I just mean the police don't care, so what's the harm of keeping the age high? lowering it means no more statuatory rape charges, and that younger teens could be coerced into porn, prostitution, etc. And yes, it can't be case by case because we need to set an age limit in order to have laws regarding age of consent.
"Of course it isn't. The law's limits are placed at the point when it is decided that the majority of people are mature enough to handle whatever it is they're being allowed to do. The entire argument rests on at what age people are considered mature enough to not cause harm to others and themselves."
Yes, and I think 16 or under is too young. A 15 year old is NOT mature or responsible enough to handle a sexual relationship.
"Edit: And it's ok to oppress a minority now?"
What, are you pulling the "agism" card now? Is it also agism to say that babies can't drive cars? A line has to be drawn. I say the line is around 18, because that's when we reach maturity. You've given no reason for me to think otherwise other than "some 15 year olds are very mature", to which I counter with: well, what about the ones that aren't, and could get taken advantage of? The law should stay that age. Would you also apply that if we reduce the age of consent, that they should also be allowed into porn? I really hope I don't have to point out how the possibly AWFUL consequences of that. I just really can't see any good reasons for lowering the age. I DO agree that some people younger than 17 would be ready. That DOES NOT mean it's a good idea to lower the age of consent.
About older people being immature: absolutely there are many. But they are also mature enough in other ways to handle it when a relationship with sex involved breaks up. Most 15 year olds aren't, certainly not the ones I know. They're horribly hurt. How can kids that young know about love and how to be in a good relationship when they're only just entering that period of their lives? It takes years to know. 16 and under is just too young.
I agree with Elyse (big surprise, there). There does need to be an objective standard. Emotional/mental maturity cannot be a standard since it is not remotely objective, therefore the best thing we can do is set an age limit. 18 is as reasonable an age limit as I've heard of, because that's around when we reach physical maturity. If anything, from what I know, it could be argued that that should be raised. A 14-year-old does not have the mental development or competence to decide things as an 18-year-old would. The body and brain are still developing at that time, and continue to do so until 18+.
Experience, maturity, etc count as moral arguments, and while I consider that more than a valid basis to denounce a 20-year-old sleeping with a 14-year-old as a jerk, it's not a legal basis for criminalizing it. However, the fact that the 14-year-old has not completely developed physically and has not developed mentally enough to make a competent decision concerning life-altering events (hence why minors can't solely sign contracts) is more than a valid legal basis.
No, you said "You can't be an adult until you are one. You can't have the wisdom that life gives you before you live it."Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris
The first part I can't really argue with. It's like "You can't have hair until you grow hair". But the second part I take issue with. Wisdom and experience aren't the same thing, in fact I'd categorize wisdom as knowing what to do without specifically related experience. Furthermore your point of physical maturity is conceded (You'll note I didn't argue with that side of it.) but there's no reason mental maturity should hinge on physical maturity.
How many statutory rape charges are brought against people who sleep with 17 year olds? Or 16 year olds? Until you drop below that, I'm not aware that it's common unless the younger person's family takes massive offense, or unless the older person has done something else which there isn't enough evidence for.Quote:
I just mean the police don't care, so what's the harm of keeping the age high? lowering it means no more statuatory rape charges, and that younger teens could be coerced into porn, prostitution, etc. And yes, it can't be case by case because we need to set an age limit in order to have laws regarding age of consent.
Can't argue with 'I think'. Can and do contest 'is not'.Quote:
Yes, and I think 16 or under is too young. A 15 year old is NOT mature or responsible enough to handle a sexual relationship.
Actually, you've hit on what I meant with "Oppress" right there. I don't think it's right to make laws against the people who are mature enough to handle it because some people aren't. The law has no business protecting people from themselves in the first place, and as for exploitation by others, that's why I say 15-17 can sleep with up to three years older, whilst 17 and up doesn't have those limits.Quote:
What, are you pulling the "agism" card now? Is it also agism to say that babies can't drive cars? A line has to be drawn. I say the line is around 18, because that's when we reach maturity. You've given no reason for me to think otherwise other than "some 15 year olds are very mature", to which I counter with: well, what about the ones that aren't, and could get taken advantage of?
Eh, I dunno, I think porn should be set at 17 with the 'sleep with anyone' bracket.Quote:
The law should stay that age. Would you also apply that if we reduce the age of consent, that they should also be allowed into porn? I really hope I don't have to point out how the possibly AWFUL consequences of that. I just really can't see any good reasons for lowering the age. I DO agree that some people younger than 17 would be ready. That DOES NOT mean it's a good idea to lower the age of consent.
"You can't have the wisdom that life gives you before you live it." How else do they get knowledge about handling relationships? And as my earlier link suggests, countries with more liberal attitudes to sex have significantly fewer teen pregnancies. This further implies either protection is used, or less sex occurs. In either case STD spreads are reduced, unless they are all on the pill. The purely educational side of it appears to be quite alright with lowering the age, and there is no way to educate people (Except perhaps through very good fiction) about how to deal with relationships, they either inherently know it or they learn it through the exact method you suggest, experience.Quote:
About older people being immature: absolutely there are many. But they are also mature enough in other ways to handle it when a relationship with sex involved breaks up. Most 15 year olds aren't, certainly not the ones I know. They're horribly hurt. How can kids that young know about love and how to be in a good relationship when they're only just entering that period of their lives? It takes years to know. 16 and under is just too young.
"No, you said "You can't be an adult until you are one. You can't have the wisdom that life gives you before you live it.""
That was one of the things I said. I thought the "at the end of puberty" part was understood, as I talked about physical and mental maturity.
"But the second part I take issue with. Wisdom and experience aren't the same thing, in fact I'd categorize wisdom as knowing what to do without specifically related experience."
Dictionary says wisdom is "accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment", and I'd agree. Knowing without related experience is common sense, and my common sense says that young people routinely and repeatedly make poor decision regarding sex and relationships.
"but there's no reason mental maturity should hinge on physical maturity."
If your brain is still developing it does. I definitely notice a difference between the mental capacity of most 15 year olds and most 20 year olds. But I do see your point.
"How many statutory rape charges are brought against people who sleep with 17 year olds? Or 16 year olds? Until you drop below that, I'm not aware that it's common unless the younger person's family takes massive offense, or unless the older person has done something else which there isn't enough evidence for."
Why does that matter? Laws are there for protection. That's like saying "it's not common for people to rape 80 year olds, so let's repeal the law". 16 year olds DO get taken advantage of.
"Actually, you've hit on what I meant with "Oppress" right there. I don't think it's right to make laws against the people who are mature enough to handle it because some people aren't. The law has no business protecting people from themselves in the first place, and as for exploitation by others, that's why I say 15-17 can sleep with up to three years older, whilst 17 and up doesn't have those limits."
So if the law isn't in place to protect people from themselves, then I'm going to have sex with a 4 year old, because they said yes.
"Eh, I dunno, I think porn should be set at 17 with the 'sleep with anyone' bracket."
Hmm. 17 is more reasonable, but I would draw the line there. I should clarify, that I don't think that means that we should run around arresting any 16 year olds getting nookie. As I said, the law is there to protect people who might be taken advantage of. If two 15 year olds both consent, there why would the law be contacted? But if an 18 year old, most of which are ready for sex LONG before 15 year olds, coerces a 15 year old into bed, that's not right. It happens. I know many it's happened to. Younger kids (girls especially) tend to idolize older people and are more liable to be pressured into doing things they don't actually want to do. That's how pedophiles get kids to do things with them. I'm not saying the 18 year old is necessarily a pedophile, but they (could! I'm saying IF they coerce them here, to clarify) are still taking advantage of someone who's not ready. Do you see what I mean?
"How else do they get knowledge about handling relationships?"
I had many relationships that didn't involve sex.
"And as my earlier link suggests, countries with more liberal attitudes to sex have significantly fewer teen pregnancies."
I believe widely available information leads to fewer pregnancies. I dunno what you mean by "liberal attitudes". I'd like to think I am pretty liberal. I fully believe in sex ed starting in grade school.
"In either case STD spreads are reduced, unless they are all on the pill."
I was on the pill years before I was sexually active. Your point is moot.
"The purely educational side of it appears to be quite alright with lowering the age."
Uh, what?
"and there is no way to educate people (Except perhaps through very good fiction) about how to deal with relationships, they either inherently know it or they learn it through the exact method you suggest, experience."
Sex ed?
And you act as if "no sex" and "no relationships" are the same thing. Ideally younger teens (14ish) would have relationships involving kissing etc, and gradually build up experience until they're ready for sex (18ish, meaning 16+). If you say a 15 year old is ready, then that suggests they either begin having relationships ready for sex (which I think is nonsense), or they've been having relationships since they were 12-13, which I think is far too young to begin to understand the workings of a good relationship. If they don't have that framework, then I don't see how they could be ready for sex, and I don't see how they could gain that wisdom at such a young age.
Dictionary's wrong. :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris
Mmm, I honestly don't see that much difference between teenagers and adults. It's not that teenagers are mature, it's that adults very often aren't. But that's personal opinion, which isn't that great a basis for laws.Quote:
If your brain is still developing it does. I definitely notice a difference between the mental capacity of most 15 year olds and most 20 year olds. But I do see your point.
"How many statutory rape charges are brought against people who sleep with 17 year olds? Or 16 year olds? Until you drop below that, I'm not aware that it's common unless the younger person's family takes massive offense, or unless the older person has done something else which there isn't enough evidence for."
But when 80 year olds get raped, and it gets found out, there is a massive outcry about it. Nobody, at least nobody I know of, makes a big fuss if a 16 year old sleeps with someone a couple of years older. 16 year olds get taken advantage of, but not by other 16 year olds (And even if they do it's moot because I don't know of ANY cases in recent times where two people under the AoC who are the same age have been brought up for it.). That is why I support having shifting limits, because I see a difference between a 16 and 18 year old, and a 16 and 40 year old.Quote:
Why does that matter? Laws are there for protection. That's like saying "it's not common for people to rape 80 year olds, so let's repeal the law". 16 year olds DO get taken advantage of.
They'd be being protected from you, not themselves. Again, that's why I suggest different limits for different ages :pQuote:
So if the law isn't in place to protect people from themselves, then I'm going to have sex with a 4 year old, because they said yes.
I think you are being a little stricter than I would be in the differences between people in their mid to late teens, but in principle I agree with what you're saying there.Quote:
Hmm. 17 is more reasonable, but I would draw the line there. I should clarify, that I don't think that means that we should run around arresting any 16 year olds getting nookie. As I said, the law is there to protect people who might be taken advantage of. If two 15 year olds both consent, there why would the law be contacted? But if an 18 year old, most of which are ready for sex LONG before 15 year olds, coerces a 15 year old into bed, that's not right. It happens. I know many it's happened to. Younger kids (girls especially) tend to idolize older people and are more liable to be pressured into doing things they don't actually want to do. That's how pedophiles get kids to do things with them. I'm not saying the 18 year old is necessarily a pedophile, but they (could! I'm saying IF they coerce them here, to clarify) are still taking advantage of someone who's not ready. Do you see what I mean?
By liberal attitudes I don't mean anything political, I just mean being open-minded and not demonising sex. Incidentally, I think a fair amount of the harm sex causes is because people do see it as such a big deal. Biologically it is, but socially it doesn't have to be. We don't make a big deal out of breathing, and that's even more essential. So if we lighten up, accept the inevitable, and don't act like totally normal things are horribly harmful, they won't be horribly harmful.Quote:
I believe widely available information leads to fewer pregnancies. I dunno what you mean by "liberal attitudes". I'd like to think I am pretty liberal. I fully believe in sex ed starting in grade school.
I don't see what you're saying there. My point was that it's fair to presume STD rates are lower among teens in countries with lower teen pregnancy rates, on the basis that those lower pregnancies are either due to more protection being used, or less sex occuring. As a provisor to the first possibility, I made it clear I was aware of baby prevention methods which wouldn't prevent STD spread.Quote:
I was on the pill years before I was sexually active. Your point is moot.
... I have no idea. Ignore that. xDQuote:
"The purely educational side of it appears to be quite alright with lowering the age."
Uh, what?
You've got some spiffy sex ed if it teaches you how to deal with relationship issues. Mine, and that of many people I know, was "This is how babies are made and this is how you stop it. *Teacher puts a condom on a dildo*" In essence, it taught you the mechanics. Certainly nothing about dealing with a relationship.Quote:
Sex ed?
"They'd be being protected from you, not themselves. Again, that's why I suggest different limits for different ages :p"
That's my point. They agreed to it, but they didn't have a clear understand of what they were doing or the implications. I do. Same could be with a 15 and 18 year old having sex.
"I don't see what you're saying there. My point was that it's fair to presume STD rates are lower among teens in countries with lower teen pregnancy rates, on the basis that those lower pregnancies are either due to more protection being used, or less sex occuring. As a provisor to the first possibility, I made it clear I was aware of baby prevention methods which wouldn't prevent STD spread."
Ok then, lets regroup: what the heck does that have to do with what we're talking about?
And therein lies our disagreement. There's no reason to presume a 15 year old wouldn't, or that an 18 year old would. A society which didn't prepare people for sex wouldn't equip an 18 year old, for instance, and until they do it they'll probably be ignorant for a potentially infinite time. Counterwise, a society which is open about it likely will have prepared a 15 year old, certainly a lot more than an 18 year old. There are plenty of variables beyond this, too, but that's an obvious example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris
Less stringent measures/less uptight opinions* regarding sex = fewer problems with teenagers regarding sex.Quote:
Ok then, lets regroup: what the heck does that have to do with what we're talking about?
*I'm not referring to you specifically, but rather the general feelings on sex in the US compared to those in Europe. EDIT: I just realized, I've confused this thread and the other one on AoC laws going on right now. There's a link in there which shows some interesting figures.
"Less stringent measures/less uptight opinions* regarding sex = fewer problems with teenagers regarding sex.
*I'm not referring to you specifically, but rather the general feelings on sex in the US compared to those in Europe. EDIT: I just realized, I've confused this thread and the other one on AoC laws going on right now. There's a link in there which shows some interesting figures."
Information is also MUCH more available over there. I think that is the key, not a bunch of 15 year olds rutting.
At least their platform is better than what the Nazis proposed.
Well like someone said above, it's not just the sex, it's the "side effect" - a pregnancy (or disease) - that complicates things. I don't believe anyone younger than 18 should be raising a child!Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris
Even 18 year olds should not be parents. They should get an opportunity to go to college, travel, settle on a career, get a job they like, date, got to parties, movies, concerts and enjoy their adult life before being tied down with raising kids.
Parenting is wonderful, but it demmands a lot from people. No more seeing movies when they come out, no more concerts, parties only the kiddie ones... Definitely not something you should do while beeing a teen or before you get a shot at making a life for yourself!
PS: On other note, please don't stereotype the Dutch. Not all Dutch people are like that
I saw this on the news. It really doesn't suprise me, though I still don't think they are going to get very far. Most of the other Dutch Parties and Citizens are trying to shut that party down.