Replies

This is legal insanity. 19th Century Feminist agitation resulted in the raising the age of consent far above the age when youth became sexually mature, to preserve the "purity of women." (there were other legal protections) While we would hope and should strive to educate youth not to engage in early and irresponsible sexual act ivies with each other, youth in every age, with or without society approval have done it.

In an earlier age the girl might have been sent off "to visit a relative" and the baby placed out; or a marriage might have been arranged; far more sensible and humane solutions than these absurd and self righteous prosecutions.

I do have to agree. I would want to see both parties assume responsibilities for raising a family unless the decision is to place the baby out for adoption but I'm going on the assumption that they will keep and raise the baby. Both families will have to pitch in and help, I want to keep te public assistance footprint to a minimum although it should be used as a last resort. They should first finish school, if they can't go to school, homeschool them or find some other means and educate them to learn some marketable skills. Also what should be included is religion, give them a good, moral ground to stand on. Age of consent and other such age limits I kind of find to be kind of lacking, personally, I have found some 11 year olds with a lot of maturity whereas I have seen 20, 30 and even 40 year olds that act like kids. I know "in the old days," (to use a well used phrase), many people did marry at 12, 13 or 14, heck, some Biblical scholars put Mary's age at 15 or 16.

This reminds me a little bit of one case in Nebraska where one guy who was 21 married a 13 year old girl after he got her pregnant by going to Kansas to where it is legal to do so. The Nebraska Attorney General wants to prosecute the boy/man (I know he is 22 now and she is 14, but I'll be 40 this year (2006) so 22 seems very young to me. B-)) for statutory rape. Thr boy wants to do right, get a job and/or some education to enable him to do the right thing and take care of his family but if Nebraska prosecutes, he could go to jail. I know I might get some knickers in a knot here but I think what Nebraska is doing is wrong, the attorney general is just looking for another notch on his gun. Sure, they could be following the letter of the law here but I do take one of my high school buddy's sayings to heart, "the law is not sacrosanct (sacred)." In this case, if both sides and families are willing to do the right thing, then let them alone, it will not do any good for the baby and young mother if the father is in the clink and they will most likely end up on the dole with the taxpayer supporting them. So what I would propose is this: aslong as they do the right thing, they should be left alone but if the father would do something like beat the mother or baby, then you can turn the attorney general loose with the original charges along with the additional abuse charges.

I'm a firm believer in redemption as practiced in the Bible to where Jesus said, "he without sin, cast the first stone" and where he added, "go and sin no more." Let's give the people in both these cases to redeem themselves and assume responsibilty.

Now where the law is meant to be used in cases like this to where let's say there is a 22 year old man trolling for 14 year old girls by hanging outside junior high schools for carnal purposes. In that case, throw the book at them. We need to be able to use descretion when we apply the law.

Just a morality ping as well.

I like this saying, "the law is not sacrosanct", as laws made by man cannot be. Some in this post think that by showing Christian love and compassion to those who break convention they are somehow condoning bad behavior. They think that I am fearful of "judging" by showing compassion. That is not the case. I can and do freely judge the words and actions of others around me. We all do by the things we do or do not do, and the places we go or do not go. However, "judging" should not be confused with calling somebody a "whore" or other pejorative that makes that person less than human, and then by lack of humanness open for the most vile of persecution. The laws of man are not sacrosanct. Only the laws of God are that. I am not God, therefore I cannot judge as does God. My opinions are just that, opinions, not divine utterances. But still I do judge based on how I understand the Bible and Gods word. But don't confuse me with Phelps or other people who hate in Gods name.