Quick Links : Classifeds | Profiles | Forum | Register
 
View Topic
  Message Boards : Love / Health : View Topic : 77 Posts, Page 2 of 6
  HomeNewNoticesHot TopicsPollsStats Login / Register
 
When Is It Too Old/Young To Have A Baby?
 
# 16 : Thursday 20-8-2009 @ 20:00
 
 
Someone said :
Nature is always right.

Sometimes nature is not right.

In nature certain things are POSSIBLE. It doesn't make them right or responsible just because they are possible.

So a women having a baby at 50 or 55 is responsible just because she can - biologically speaking?

Or a girl of 12 having a baby who can not support it just because she is old enough to conceive?
Locked Topic
 
 Recent Message Board Topics
Dead Thread 2021
Repeat, Avoid, Or Compensate?
Word Association Thread - The New Edition
Gender-neutral Toilets: From Ally Mcbeal To Doe
Terraforming Of Mars: Countdown To Your Mars Holiday
Period Poverty: Is It A Priority?
Swimming
Funny Pictures To Brighten Your Day - Funny Edition
 
Hey! If you enjoy shooting the breeze with like-minded people, check out
our Message Boards
• Advice • Coming Out
• Computers • Current Affairs
• Discussion • Food & Drink
• Going Out • Humour
• Health • Music
• Newbies • Sexual Issues
# 17 : Sunday 23-8-2009 @ 02:38
 
 
Yes.
If she is able to have a kid, she is fit to have it but raising it is different.
If she cannot have it but wants to raise one, why not adopt? Why force natures' hand?
Locked TopicWebsite
 
# 18 : Sunday 23-8-2009 @ 03:33
 
 
good for you.the day your 12 yr old daughter/niece comes in and says shes pregnant,im sure youll be thrilled because it was natures course.

on the otherhand if my son comes in anytime soon saying hes got a girl the same age pregnant,i dont think id be thinking about that.id probably fucking kill him where hes standing.
Locked Topic
 
# 19 : Sunday 23-8-2009 @ 03:55
 
 
Someone said :
Let nature talk.
Enough of the nature is wrong crap. Nature is always right.

Its arcane attitudes like that that forced a 15 year old girl to carry her pregnancy to full-term in total secrecy, and then to go to deliver it, alone and unaided, under a statue of the virgin mary in a field in co Longford.
Of course, both she and the infant died.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/feb/01/vale-of-tears-veil etc ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article112472 etc ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Lovett
Locked Topic
 
# 20 : Sunday 23-8-2009 @ 04:46
 
 
I think maybe John Porter has a point which it's not the dying of the girl.
Maybe it is just that it is OK for her to be pregnent, because it is nature but if she not want to have the infant she can be assisted too.

If it is OK, why make it a secret I suppose?
Locked TopicWebsite
 
# 21 : Sunday 23-8-2009 @ 10:25
 
 
Nature isn't always right, if it was why would we have worms whose only means of survival is in childs eye. You try and tell me how that is right. Nature is just a haphazard group of things thrown together. If it was always right it would have designed the spine better.
Locked Topic
 
# 22 : Sunday 23-8-2009 @ 18:28
 
 
Someone said :
Nature isn't always right, if it was why would we have worms whose only means of survival is in childs eye. You try and tell me how that is right. Nature is just a haphazard group of things thrown together. If it was always right it would have designed the spine better.

exactly. Nature is in fact selfish and organisms suffer because of it's natural urges to reproduce and survive.
Locked Topic
 
# 23 : Saturday 5-9-2009 @ 21:01
 
 
I was reading up on this and the youngest confirmed mother was a five year old in 1939.

What surprised me on the wiki page was how most of the recorded youngests were in the 2000s, and this got me thinking of St. Perry's most recent blog. Were there really no under 12 year olds impregnated in the 1980s and 1990s or were they left unrecorded?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers
Locked Topic
 
# 24 : Saturday 5-9-2009 @ 21:02
 
 
I would say that they were mostly left unrecorded.

Imagine the poor 5 year old mother. An obvious case of child abuse.
Locked Topic
 
# 25 : Saturday 5-9-2009 @ 21:03
 
 
I would imagine that things like that were so well hidden that we will probably never know. As we might never know the true amount of harm that was done to young lives
Locked Topic
 
# 26 : Saturday 5-9-2009 @ 21:08
 
 
I read more about her Intrepid, the son didn't find out that the girl he thought was his sister was his mother until he was 10. She had her second child 33 years later, and is still alive at 75, but refuses to give interviews (good on her I say) her son passed away in 1979 at 40.
Locked Topic
 
# 27 : Saturday 5-9-2009 @ 21:24
 
 
A five year old mother, Jeez, I thought I had heard it all. ...........How could menstruation start in the human female at that age? I thought at least 10 maybe 11..
Locked Topic
 
# 28 : Saturday 5-9-2009 @ 21:35
 
 
Someone said :

exactly. Nature is in fact selfish and organisms suffer because of it's natural urges to reproduce and survive.

This is sooo true.

It pisses me off when right-wing conservative reactionaries start harping back to 'nature' and to the 'natural order of things'

2 points come out of this.

1] Humans live in culture, not in nature. Humans wouldn't survive too long in nature. Nature is cruel and humans have had to conquer nature to survive on this planet.

2] Because we can only ever communicate through language [be it spoken, written or in modern times, visual] - well, language itself is a cultural construct. Therefore how we imagine and communicate this mythical 'natural order' is totally constructed within itself.

We're not all Bear Grylls [or whatever his name is] I wouldn't fancy my chances out in 'nature' for very long. I mean, do they have sky plus out in nature? And who would make the tea?
Locked Topic
 
# 29 : Saturday 5-9-2009 @ 21:40
 
 
Written with tongue in cheek I hope!!! I know humans are social animals and as such develop a culture based on geography and environment, but to say humans control or strive to control nature is way off the mark.
Locked Topic
 
# 30 : Saturday 5-9-2009 @ 21:45
 
 
How so?

Would the rivers and rain water just automatically direct itself into our homes?
Would the diseases just politely go away because we wanted them to?
Would the land just level itself for us to build upon?
Where would the coal come from?
would the trees grow into convenient planks for us to make stuff with?

How about the electricity? Would that just manufacture itself for us?

We have to control our environement, don't we?
Otherwise it would overrun us.

I know its only 'discovery channel' .... and therefore not really good 'evidence' but did you ever see a programme called 'Life after Humans'...???
It was interesting, if nothing else.

Anyway, how is it 'way off the mark'????

I'm interested to see why you think I'm way off the mark there?
Locked Topic
 
Prev 123456Next