Should 9 year olds legally be allowed to have sex and get pregnant and skip education if they want to?

I know the opinions of a few people on the forum already, I vote no by the way.

I vote no, mainly on the basis 9 year olds aren't old enough to give well reasoned consent IMHO.

No, definitely not in Europe, maybe elsewhere. It depends upon how fast girls mature, the culture etc. many factors.

---

(May 16, 2013 at 9:55 am)Napoléon Wrote: I vote no, mainly on the basis 9 year olds aren't old enough to give well reasoned consent IMHO.

I agree with you for the most part but why do you think no 9 year old in the world is old enough to give "well-reasoned consent"? Do you have objective evidence that is the case?

(May 16, 2013 at 9:57 am)ideologue08 Wrote: Do you have objective evidence that is the case?

Do you have objective evidence that it isn't?

(May 16, 2013 at 10:05 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(May 16, 2013 at 9:57 am)ideologue08 Wrote: Do you have objective evidence that is the case?

Do you have objective evidence that it isn't?

Your forum sub title certainly doesn't lie.

(May 16, 2013 at 10:13 am)ideologue08 Wrote: Your forum sub title certainly doesn't lie.

And that means what exactly?

(May 16, 2013 at 9:50 am)paulpablo Wrote: Should 9 year olds legally be allowed to have sex and get pregnant and skip education if they want to?

I voted 'No' in general principle but your question conflates the separate issues of sex & education. So...

Q. Should 9 year olds legally be allowed to have sex and get pregnant if they want to?

A. No. In fact, the overwhelming majority of 9 year olds will be prepubescent therefore incapable of having babies. On the grounds of prepubescence, I would also consider sexual activity as unethical; their bodies are just not ready yet. In terms of consent, I agree with Napoleon that people of that age will not have developed enough knowledge or matured enough, intellectually, to give informed consent.

Q. Should 9 year olds legally be allowed to skip education if they want?

A. No. A useful simplification of the parental role is 'to provide survival & survivability to their offspring'. We understand that modern education is extremely useful in achieving those aims and in a modern social context, allows us to 'optimise' the survival & survivability rates of our offspring. Further, given humanity's complexity, we provide our offspring with greater opportunity for quality of life by insisting on a minimum level of education. The European & American models for education seem to have struck the right balance by insisting that children are included in the education process until 16/18 years old.

(May 16, 2013 at 10:16 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(May 16, 2013 at 10:13 am)ideologue08 Wrote: Your forum sub title certainly doesn't lie.

And that means what exactly?

He called you a "cunt."

I voted no on all accounts. I think the parents should nurture the young child to adulthood. The child lacks the understanding of sex and world. Their minds and bodies are not yet ready for those situations.

I love how there's no "... if the nine year old(s) in question meet the qualities of fuckability, and maternalability." Education is always optional... someone might force you to school, but you are not mandated to learn anything.

Some people saying 'they're just not ready yet!', more saying 'they can't give <modified>-consent!'... none yet to declare... 'why'.

And then some spice of people blubbering on for objective evidence

Edit: I voted yes, because as long as abuse laws remain intact: I have no issue with this.