Child Act 'pushes promiscuity'

I am sorry but this whole "own morals" thing is the biggest load of BS around. If we live by our own morals, there is no crime, no law, no nothing.

My morals... whatever is good for me is good and I don't give a fig about anyone else. So if you have something I want, I take it; I see a woman I want, I take her. You piss me off, I kill you. All these things hurt others but so what, it's my morals I am happy with them.

If we lived in a world of our own morals it would be choas. You can't tell me to then live by some rules, because that is societies morals not mine. And all societies, cutures etc have a different set of morals.
 
Yep, and to think that the scientific fraternity's right wing believe morals are purely evolution of survival skills. "I don't abstain because it's wrong, just because my species survival depends on it". Except that one can be taught right from wrong by your parents. Some say its common sense, but common sense to one is not common sense to another.

I think forcing people to abstain using the law and consequences is necessary...
 
Last edited:
Eniigma said:
On another side, the fact that I am my child’s legal guardian till the age of 18, means I damn sure have the right to decide is my child is having sex before then and I will be damn pissed off if someone is supplying my child contraceptives without my consent until my child is at least of a legally consenting age and more appropriately classified as an adult at the age of 18.
Click to expand...

While you might think you have that right, legally you don't. Being someone's guardian doesn't mean you have total and absolute control over them.
 
Eniigma said:
On another side, the fact that I am my child’s legal guardian till the age of 18, means I damn sure have the right to decide is my child is having sex before then and I will be damn pissed off if someone is supplying my child contraceptives without my consent until my child is at least of a legally consenting age and more appropriately classified as an adult at the age of 18.
Click to expand...
Are you planning on locking your children in their room until the age of 18?

While I would hope that my kids would want to discuss things with me at the end of the day I want them to be safe and not dead.
 
As long as my child lives under my roof and on my dollar and is under the age of 18 I have every right to tell them how to live. If they don't want to obey those and do the state thinks they have the right to tell me I can't enforce that, well then the state can have the right to house and pay for my childs life.

Of course havign said that, I honestly belive if it ever got to that, I would have failed as a parent anyway.
 
Yeah, I must say, that while many says parents are responsible for their kids, often the same folk say parents shouldn't lay down the law...
 
Last edited:
bwana said:
Are you planning on locking your children in their room until the age of 18?

While I would hope that my kids would want to discuss things with me at the end of the day I want them to be safe and not dead.
Click to expand...

No certainly not. Of course there is nothing I could do (short of that locking them away) to stop them having sex before then if they wanted, even if I have said they can't. As you put it, I would hope they would talk to me about it before. I also hope that I will bring up my kids in a way that they are not running around having sex at 12 or 13, heck maybe not even till they are married.

My point, unclearly put was, that it is up to me, imo, as a parent to decide when my child, within the legal age guidelines, is permitted to have sex and not some stranger peddling condoms. Simply put that children don't always know what is best for them and its part of your job as a parent to help them make the difficult / important decisions.
I realise that after the age of 18 or possibly (stupidly) 16 that children are considered adults and then legally allowed to do as they please.
 
Moving back towards the original topic, can someone please explain to me how they see this law as promoting promiscuity?
 
groundnut said:
Yeah, I must say, that while many says parents are responsible for their kids, often the same folk say parents shouldn't lay down the law...
Click to expand...
There's no reason why one cant be both. I am responsible - legally and morally - for my children. That doesnt mean I can or should be tyrannical.
icyrus said:
Moving back towards the original topic, can someone please explain to me how they see this law as promoting promiscuity?
Click to expand...
It only promotes promiscuity if you believe they wouldn't have done the deed anyway.
 
Eniigma said:
My point, unclearly put was, that it is up to me, imo, as a parent to decide when my child, within the legal age guidelines, is permitted to have sex and not some stranger peddling condoms. Simply put that children don't always know what is best for them and its part of your job as a parent to help them make the difficult / important decisions.
I realise that after the age of 18 or possibly (stupidly) 16 that children are considered adults and then legally allowed to do as they please.
Click to expand...

Do you think the availability of condoms is going to affect their decision though? Isn't it better for them to have sex with condoms than without? It doesn't really make sense to offer condoms to people that are below the age of consent though.
 
icyrus said:
Moving back towards the original topic, can someone please explain to me how they see this law as promoting promiscuity?
Click to expand...

Quite simply, I am assuming, he believes that children who would not have previously been as promiscuis because of the difficulty in obtaining condoms and their fear of getting aids (like they think about that) would now be more willing to engage in this behaviour. And by this measure, the greater the amount of sexual activity, the greater the chance of a faulty condom, the greater the chance of a partner with aids, the greater the risk of getting aids.
 
Eniigma said:
Quite simply, I am assuming, he believes that children who would not have previously been as promiscuis because of the difficulty in obtaining condoms and their fear of getting aids (like they think about that) would now be more willing to engage in this behaviour. And by this measure, the greater the amount of sexual activity, the greater the chance of a faulty condom, the greater the chance of a partner with aids, the greater the risk of getting aids.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately kids aren't renowned for exercising common sense in the face of raging hormones. :o

At least if they're still around you can ground them for the remainder of their long life. ;)
 
bwana said:
There's no reason why one cant be both. I am responsible - legally and morally - for my children. That doesnt mean I can or should be tyrannical.It only promotes promiscuity if you believe they wouldn't have done the deed anyway.
Click to expand...

Why do you equate law with tyranny?
 
Yes I believe that anything that makes it eaiser for them will encourage them. While I don't think that many 12 year olds will really be giving much thought to pregancy, aids etc, there are a few that will and now if those dangers are reduced by the free availablity of condoms, especially without mommy and daddy knowing then more will take advantage of it.

And yes, it cetainly is better to have protected sex then unprotected. Offering this to under aged child sends out a mixed signal to them... on the one hand we are saying you are not allowed to shag until 16/18/ whatever the age is, but on the other we are saying here you go, have a condom and a good time. Does not make sense really.
 
The kids who would be slowed by the lack of condoms are the more mature or intelligent ones who would in all probability have found a way to acquire them anyway... but perhaps not consistently.

Allowing 12 year olds to use contraceptives may be seen as tacitly giving permission. However, with young teens, permission is by no means a neccessity.

Here's a point, though... when I was 12-ish, we used to take free condoms from clinics to use as waterbombs. So, were those ever restricted? Another: would a condom designed for an adult even fit a 12 year old? Wouldn't ill-fitting condoms increase the risk of breakage?
 
bwana said:
Where did I?
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by groundnut:
Yeah, I must say, that while many says parents are responsible for their kids, often the same folk say parents shouldn't lay down the law...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
There's no reason why one cant be both. I am responsible - legally and morally - for my children. That doesnt mean I can or should be tyrannical.
 
groundnut said:
Originally Posted by groundnut:
Yeah, I must say, that while many says parents are responsible for their kids, often the same folk say parents shouldn't lay down the law...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
There's no reason why one cant be both. I am responsible - legally and morally - for my children. That doesnt mean I can or should be tyrannical.
Click to expand...
Then I'm afraid you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. Lets start over.

Why do you equate being responsible for your kids with laying down the law to them. What does one have to do with the other?

EDIT - btw I do feel that a parents enforcement of unrealistic rules in an attempt to unnecessarily control a child are tyrannical.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X