Jimmy Savile 'household name' sweep

[KentPhilip]

Its not God or nature who don't want it to happen, its society and the children's parents you twunt.

Yes I am aware of that.
The point I'm making is that 13 year-old girls have been reproducing for millions of years along with their animal peers, and now along comes "civilization" (society and the childrens' parents) with their hoity-toity ways thinking that they know best. Do they?

[mudskipper]

Yes I am aware of that.
The point I'm making is that 13 year-old girls have been reproducing for millions of years along with their animal peers, and now along comes "civilization" (society and the childrens' parents) with their hoity-toity ways thinking that they know best. Do they?

Yes.

[Pogle]

Yes I am aware of that.
The point I'm making is that 13 year-old girls have been reproducing for millions of years along with their animal peers, and now along comes "civilization" (society and the childrens' parents) with their hoity-toity ways thinking that they know best. Do they?

Your knowledge of history is like your moral logic, deeply flawed.

[Sysman]

Gary Glitter arrested again

Former pop star Gary Glitter has been arrested on suspicion of sex offences by police investigating Jimmy Savile abuse claims.

[d000hg]

Its not God or nature who don't want it to happen, its society and the children's parents you twunt.

So the 'natural morality' is to say it's OK if the girl's gone through puberty, rather than impose an artificial age limit on it.

[KentPhilip]

Your knowledge of history is like your moral logic, deeply flawed.

Well I've done a quick google and not found anything, but my understanding is that in prehistoric times man and woman would reproduce from age 13 and die in their mid 30's.
So just because we now live in a civilized world where we live much longer, does that mean that continuing to reproduce at age 13 is bad and harmful to the girl? Maybe yes, but I'd be interested to know why.

Morals, and logic, have no relationship to each other surely?

[speling bee]

So the 'natural morality' is to say it's OK if the girl's gone through puberty, rather than impose an artificial age limit on it.

Unless we hold that the capacity to consent is an important factor.

[speling bee]

Well I've done a quick google and not found anything, but my understanding is that in prehistoric times man and woman would reproduce from age 13 and die in their mid 30's.
So just because we now live in a civilized world where we live much longer, does that mean that continuing to reproduce at age 13 is bad and harmful to the girl? Maybe yes, but I'd be interested to know why.

Morals, and logic, have no relationship to each other surely?

What does this logic say about contemporary attitudes to rape?

[Sysman]

Well I've done a quick google and not found anything, but my understanding is that in prehistoric times man and woman would reproduce from age 13 and die in their mid 30's.
So just because we now live in a civilized world where we live much longer, does that mean that continuing to reproduce at age 13 is bad and harmful to the girl? Maybe yes, but I'd be interested to know why.

I saw a documentary a few years ago on the subject of underage pregnancies in the US. Apparently a lot of those teenage mothers don't have fully developed bodies, which can lead to difficult pregnancies and births.

All you have to do is look in the history books to see how many women died during childbirth before modern medicine came along. The laws serve a very practical purpose.

[Zippy]

Well I've done a quick google and not found anything, but my understanding is that in prehistoric times man and woman would reproduce from age 13 and die in their mid 30's.

I doubt that. The average age of puberty in this country was about 16-17 in 1840 - probably due to relatively poorer nutrition or the lack of hormones in the diet. The girl would have been more phyically and emotionally developed by this age.