Sorry to say

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:If she is 13, then she is too young to carry a baby to term.
I thought everyone knew that!

[/quote]

Regrettably wrong. Many female children at 13 or younger become pregnant and carry the child to term. I believe the extreme is now in the single digits. As to the father being a bad type, what if he is also 13, from a good background, and both kids just got carried away?

Wikipedia says youngest US citizen giving birth was 9 in 1957. Worlds youngest known is 5yr 7 mo, in the year 1939, so yeah, limits been in the single digits for a long time unfortunately.

Daryl wrote:
Regrettably wrong. Many female children at 13 or younger become pregnant and carry the child to term. I believe the extreme is now in the single digits. As to the father being a bad type, what if he is also 13, from a good background, and both kids just got carried away?

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:If she is 13, then she is too young to carry a baby to term.
I thought everyone knew that!

*LOL*

Shows what you know. The youngest mother with a child born healthy was 5 years old.
Without any major issues(from the pregnancy at least, the girl had hormonal trouble that caused extremely early puberty).

13 is easily old enough for a healthy pregnancy as long as the girl isn´t a late developer. 13 years old is in fact THE specific age where it´s most common for pregnancies to go unnoticed even up to birth, because it tends to go so smoothly and be much less visible than average.

Not to mention a number of cases where the girl in question around that age was absolutely positively certain that she COULD not get pregnant because she had never had a period. I´ve read that on average, there´s one of these ( in the 11-14 age group ) every year within the EU/USA/Japan/Australia areas combined. And a few cases of "low/pre-teen pregnancy unknown until going into labour".

Optimal age of the mother for the best chances of both mother and child surviving and being healthy is in fact in the 13-25 range, with indvidual variances within that.

So claiming that 13 is too young for a healthy or full term pregnancy is just astounding ignorance.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:As for "paternal imput" any man who would get a child on a
13-year-old girl (or even "go through the motions") is
morally unfit to have a part in the discusion.

Uh, riiight... If the male is 12-14-ish as well, uh yeah, you can call it careless or something, but bringing morals into it is just laughable.

gcomeau wrote:

DDHvi wrote:I wonder what it would be like to organize this way:

Families take care of all the problems they can;
Township equivalents (neighbors) help when families can't;
Counties are called in ONLY when townships are overwhelmed;
States are called in ONLY when the problem is too big for the counties;
Federal is reserved for ONLY things that are too large for states.

At each level, as much freedom of method as possible is encouraged, but a one page summary reports on the problem and results of the chosen solution go to the nearest neighbors at the same level, and copies are stored one level up, FYI for others with similar problems.

Handling problems at the lowest possible level is called subsidiarity (IIRC).

The difficulty, of course, is those people who focus on being in control instead of solving the problem. The Lie, steal, kill, and destroy brigade doesn't want to solve problems if they can help it

Sounds fine in theory, collapses in practice.

Let's just take one level...

"Families take care of all the problems they can;
Township equivalents (neighbors) help when families can't;"

And look, there's the neighbor everyone in the township knows is abusing their kid.



That is clearly not a case of the family can't handle the issue. The family is entirely capable of handling it. But everyone knows they won't. So then what do you do?

You either allow the abuse because it's "none of anyone else's business" and condemn the kid to their fate.... which is a horrible outcome, or you step in and impose the will of the community on the family and you've already abandoned your "the wider level only steps in when the more local can't handle it" principle.

Apologies. I should have said, "can't or won't"

Charges dropped against Abortion activist...I said this would never go to trial because they would expose PP to the Pro Life lawyers during the trial.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/planned-parenthood-david-daleiden/2016/06/14/id/733825/

smr wrote:Charges dropped against Abortion activist...I said this would never go to trial because they would expose PP to the Pro Life lawyers during the trial.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/planned-parenthood-david-daleiden/2016/06/14/id/733825/

A judge dropped a misdemeanor charge against him... and the DAs office isn't appealing because they are still pursuing the FELONY charge which is what they actually care about.


(And once again, PP and their lawyers have zero control over whether the criminal case moves forward, they are pressing a civil case which is separate from all of this... not that I expect you to listen this time...)

The current DA assumed office in special run off election when her husband died in office. Her husband was big believer in the Pro Life movement...she not so much. I am still predicting this never goes to trial. It's been a year and no trial date set. As for listening, I am! You just are not keeping up with what's happening. I believe I know a little more than you because the case is local. The legal experts on both sides here have side that they doubt it ever goes to trial. The Left and the right believe its a red herring and not worth a fight!

gcomeau wrote:

smr wrote:Charges dropped against Abortion activist...I said this would never go to trial because they would expose PP to the Pro Life lawyers during the trial.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/planned-parenthood-david-daleiden/2016/06/14/id/733825/

A judge dropped a misdemeanor charge against him... and the DAs office isn't appealing because they are still pursuing the FELONY charge which is what they actually care about.


(And once again, PP and their lawyers have zero control over whether the criminal case moves forward, they are pressing a civil case which is separate from all of this... not that I expect you to listen this time...)

smr wrote:The current DA assumed office in special run off election when her husband died in office. Her husband was big believer in the Pro Life movement...she not so much. I am still predicting this never goes to trial. It's been a year and no trial date set. As for listening, I am! You just are not keeping up with what's happening. I believe I know a little more than you because the case is local. The legal experts on both sides here have side that they doubt it ever goes to trial. The Left and the right believe its a red herring and not worth a fight!

Not to terribly bright of her careerwise. Controversy isn't terribly helpful in winning ones first real election.

From:

http://constitution.com/you-wont-believ ... es-matter/

They watch a couple videos and then they magically know in 2 minutes 35 seconds, how you are supposed to handle a violent encounter, which took you 6 months of Academy training, 2 – 3 months of field training, and countless years of blood, sweat, tears and broken bones experiencing violent encounters and fine tuning your execution of the Use of Force Continuum.

Instead they believe that we are all blood thirsty killers, because the media says so, even though the numbers prove otherwise.

“I realized that the very reasons I became a cop, are the very reasons my own people hate me, and now in this toxic hateful racially charged political climate, I am now more likely to die,… and it is still hard for me to understand…. to this day.”

Sorry to say

DDHv wrote:...

Sorry to say

Besides your closing statement being the same as the thread title that all appears to be wildly off topic?