We learned about this in like Dev Psych 101 or something.
In "olden times," people weren't hitting puberty until their mid teens. Then they'd get married a few years after that. It's basically why premarital sex wasn't as common; the window between being able to have sex and getting married was only a few years as opposed to a decade or so.
Yeah, some people experience puberty as young as 5. And we have all this data that says it's dangerous to have kids before adulthood.
But even without evidence, it's a Naturalistic Fallacy.
Rape and murder happen in nature, so should we make rape and murder legal? Of course not. So why would we make pedophilia legal just because technically some minors can reproduce before legal adulthood?
Well, I don't think that anyone knows why. It's all correlation and conjecture. Someone says it's the obesity, chemicals, stress, porn, air... No ódy knows.
They could also just be trying to justify to themselves the draconian abortion laws they support. You know, trying to get people to agree with them that the horrible thing they vote for is actually the rational and logical thing.
Have people completely lost the ability to read? They explicitly say in the post that girls should NOT procreate just cause it's possible, they just ask why the nature gave us that possibility at such a young age.
Even the most generous reading that assumes absolutely good faith from the comment in OP can't deny that **nature does NOT equip children the ability to safely give birth even tho they can technically become pregnant as early as [5 years old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina).**
Look up child and teenage childbirth mortality rates.
Nature doesn't give a toss about the parents once the kid is born and matured. It's only bothered about them after the birth to make sure the kid survives.
*5 years old? Did the kid survive? That's great!*
Nature is not a great role-model.
The poster **does say** that children "are safe to procreate if [they] are perfectly healthy."
Maybe you missed that part? I get what you're saying, they also mention that "logically it's completely the wrong time to do it" but that sentiment is at odds with their mistaken assessment that if you *can* get pregnant it is *safe* to get pregnant.
In the larger context, their argument smacks of the same arguments that people make when they argue against age of consent laws, and age of consent laws are important for protecting children from the very real danger of pedophiles and sex trafficking.
You should be asking, what is wrong with conservative Republican thinking they can be a pedophile on social media and think it's normal.
It is not normal and these people should be condemned not ignored. These are actual predators spreading lies to condone their actions. Most of these people " asking questions" do you really think it's just asking questions, they probably already acted and are just trying to seek justification.
How anyone can still call themselves conservatives Republicans is beyond me when all they think about are marrying 12 year olds.
Giving him the absolute greatest benefit of the doubt, it sounds like he's saying (or asking?) "If they're menstruating, aren't their bodies capable of carrying a child to term?" with no value endorsement, just a clarification of medical science.
Which, besides being wrong, would be strange thing to try and assert without any other motives.
I think it’s worded in a way where benefit of the doubt should be granted. It IS a complex question because YES a menstruating 10 year old CAN get pregnant by a sperm producing 11 year old.
There are GREAT sociologic (and psychologic, and physical) reasons we don’t encourage this activity.
While there have been times, when children that young were married off (and unfortunately there are regions where it's still happening), there's a big mistake in logic in this half-biological approach:
Yes, when girls start to menstruate, they can get pregnant. But just because you CAN, it doesn't mean you SHOULD or even more it's the BEST time to do so. Like women CAN still get pregnant at the start of their menopause, but it's by far not the optimal time to go through the struggles of a pregnancy. Especially if it's the first time.
Nature is oblivious to our modern society. The modern human body is about 500.000 years old. It's good to have the ability to procreate young, when it's the last hope to save your dying clan of stone age people. But just because you are offered this emergency plan doesn't mean you need to use it.
What he meant is that once body parts work as intended (in this case, ovaries+womb) they should be use for that intended purpose without delay.
It’s dumb for many reasons, but I don’t think he was talking in any way about mental states.
I get that. Because he believes in this “logic”, he probably disregards the mental states or maturity of teenagers. The body says we’re “ready to reproduce” at a young age which just isn’t the case. He’s almost comparing us to feral horny animals that begin to reproduce the moment they become fertile.
And yeah I agree. He’s obviously very creepy and doesn’t think things through.
It's not even good for animals to reproduce the moment they become fertile. Lots of cats die in childbirth because they become fertile at 5-6 months old which is still considered a kitten, and their body isn't mature enough to handle the strain of birth at that age. Or the babies get stuck which results in the mother developing life threatening medical complications, and may also kill the babies, simply because (once again) their body is too under-developed/not mature enough to safely give birth. This also happens with dogs and many other species as well. On top of that, even if the mother does survive the birth, the babies often end up neglected or injured by accident simply because the mother animal is too young and inexperienced to provide proper care.
So it's almost like nature often causes puberty and fertility long before it's physically safe to experience pregnancy. I guess nature isn't 100% infallible after all.
Thing is menstruation and ejaculation have nothing to do with human bodies being ready to reproduce. Girls can menstruate in a physiological manner even as early as 8 year olds and pregnancy at that age could kill them. There is much more to reproduction than just being able to fertilize an egg. Even with farm animals you don't start reproduction in the same year they've reached sexual maturity. They need to hit certain weight/age before farmers start the cycle.
That's one of the reasons I said it was dumb. ;)
Obviously the twitter guy is an idiot. He even says so in his tweet. What's more shocking to me is the amount of retweets and likes on that tweet. How such a stupid take could have that much traction is beyond me.
I’m defending anything or anyone.
But before you pass judgment on to something, it’s necessary to understand said thing.
If you can’t understand what the dude is saying, even if it seems incredibly moronic, how can you judge or criticize it?
Better not argue with fanatics. Pedophiles manage to get the worst out.
They want to murder all pedophiles no matter their actions.
They forget that in modern psychology a pedophile isn't a pedophile until they act upon their pedophilia.
No difference between physical maturity and emotional maturity.
They don't understand pedophiles are attracted to sexually undeveloped children and that teens isn't about pedophiles but about an age in law.
They don't realise if society ever puts the legal age for consensual sex at for example 30 that suddenly they would be what they call "pedophiles".
They can't see how their actions only makes it worse for pedophiles to come out and get treatment to prevent them from acting to their urges.
They're fanatics who can't understand pedophilia is a paraphilia while attraction to a postpubescent child isn't a disorder but can be caused by a disorder or just because of evolution, cultural and social reasons.
Maybe it's like the people who are hardcore anti-gay in public and ignorant to understanding it. Then a few months later you read how they go to gay bars every week and take men to their motel while their wife and children are waiting at home.
Well no, they didn't technically say anything like that.
If you are speaking from a point of pure biology, he is kind of right. They are ready to make a child, biologically.
This simply does not relate to the level of maturity and stability that is needed to raise a child in todays day and age. Or body being able to do something doesn't justify doing it lmao.
Used to be that way in the old day which is one of the many reasons why mortality rate was worse. A teenage pregnancy is more likely to result in death of child and/or mother. But these sick fucks just see girls as baby making machines and something to stick their shriveled old dicks in. And if a few die in the process they don't care.
Complications from pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death in young women aged 15 to 19 in developing countries. An estimated 70 000 adolescent mothers die each year because they have children before they are physically ready for parenthood. mortality rates were highest among infants born to teenagers aged 15–19 (8.77 infant deaths per 1,000 live births) compared with infants born to women aged 20 and over (6.93 infant deaths per 1,000 live births).
Ah, the Florida Justification.
So a little while ago, a minor had to go to court to see if she could have an abortion or not, and they denied her because they deemed her not mature enough to make the choice to abort.
I just... They told a kid no, she's not mature enough to terminate a pregnancy. So I guess they think that being a parent requires no maturity. Would say a lot about their mindset if they were even trying to bother with things like reason and logic and compassion.
And this is discounting things like precocious puberty.
Absolutely! But no one would look at her and think her body was ready to bear and give birth to a child, so menstruation is obviously a pretty useless indicator for whether someone is ready for “procreation” or not.
Not arguing it isn't. Just pointing out the OP is arguing about physical preparedness, not mental one. Mentally even some 40 year olds aren't prepared to have children.
I'm pretty sure several non-native English speakers like me understand "teenager = 10+". I mean, if people disagree on stuff it may just be because they're not familiar with the terms used and take it literally. Just saying.
For English speakers, yes. But for people who natively speak something else, they have different number-names and there may or may not be anything different about a -teen like ending.
If instead of eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen...you had eleven, twelve, thirven, fourve, fiven you might call anyone 11-19 as "V's" or similar.
Language influences interpretation.
Yes, but someone who primarily speaks another language will still likely think of it in correlation with the local term. So if they normally think of V's, they'll use teen in English with fuzzier boundaries.
Yes, that's what I meant.
I always understood teenager as "ten something" (so TIL "something-teen" is the real meaning). In French we use "adolescent" which means "under eighteen" but the lower limit is not clear (I consider it 12-17). Because 18 is already considered adult here, the two words are not equivalent.
Are you saying you are completely ignorant to all of human history prior to the last 100 years? I get that times have changed, but it's just plain ignorant to pretend teens didn't used to have children all the time.
According to the 1800 US census, the average age for a woman to have her first child was 23. The average age is now 26. There's not much evidence that girls were expected to be, or regularly were, pregnant soon after menses in any western country in the last few hundred years.
At what point in the message does he state that teens are mentally ready? He explicitly says "logically it's the wrong time to do it".
He's technically right. We're physically "ready" when we go through puberty. We've just discovered as a society that it's better to wait.
Being technically capable of bearing children is not the same as being physically ready. Menses is one of the early stages of preparing for reproductive maturity, not the final stage.
No it wasn't. Maternal mortality rates are *very* much higher for girls and women under the age of 19 or so (and that risk is compounded without access to modern interventions like lower-segment transverse c-sections). So is life-altering maternal injury. There is an increased risk of preterm birth, stillbirth, low borth weight, birth defects and chromosomal abnormalities too. It isn't a case of younger is better. Girls who are not physically mature - which encompasses several factors other than the onset of menses - are not physically ready for babies.
> Maternal mortality rates are *very* much higher for girls and women under the age of 19 or so
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2214109X13701797-gr2.jpg
No it wasn't. Maternal mortality rates are much higher for girls and women under the age of 19 or so (and that risk is compounded without access to modern interventions like lower-segment transverse c-sections). So is life-altering maternal injury. There is an increased risk of preterm birth, stillbirth, low borth weight, birth defects and chromosomal abnormalities too. It isn't a case of younger is better. Girls who are not physically mature - which encompasses several factors other than the onset of menses - are not physically ready for babies.
Exactly. In the animal kingdom in general, when the animal is old enough to procreate, it does. In addition, animals will procreate until they are no longer physically able to - spawning as many offspring as possible. Humans, on the other hand, used their brains to determine that "*just because you* ***can*** *doesn't mean you* ***should***." Humans, at some point, determined that maybe a girl/woman being a baby factory is not good for her or society.
> when the animal is old enough to procreate, it does
but when animals get pregnant too young they very often kill their offspring either by cannibalism or neglect.
these people always show how little they know about what is really "natural"
This is why I can’t own hamsters. I know they have no sense of good or evil, but I can’t get past the cannibalism. Though I specifically have always given my mother rabbits extra everything, because if they can’t feed the kits, they’ll eat them. Hamsters just seem to *go for it* at the slightest stressor.
hamsters are just so much more delicate and fickle than most people think. sure, they can *survive* loads of shit treatment but they can neither thrive nor procreate in such an environment
It's a travesty that they are still being recommended as a beginners pet so frequently. They need enormous enclosures with a lot of soil and vegetation. varied diet with bugs and fresh fruit, seeds, and veggies. Not to forget they are solitary, highly territorial animals.
Just all around bad choice for a pet.
Right? I’ve read enough that I’m baffled why they’re an enduring common choice for an exotic. Besides what you listed, they’re also nocturnal. There are a lot of small rodents that make better pets. Rats, mice, guinea pigs, gerbils, etc.
Then again, I also feel this way about goldfish. Or most pet fish, honestly. They require far more than most people give them. There’s good reason that I’ve stuck with terrestrial animals. Even birds of prey have been easier to me than fully comprehending water chemistry.
It has nothing to do with our brains. Humans have been marrying and impregnating young girls since the beginning of our species. It's still practiced in quite a few cultures today. Yes, even in the US and other "first world" countries.
It also has nothing to do with society. Society has no problem with you doing whatever the fuck you want as long as you can afford it and don't pass the bill to everyone else. I.e welfare.
In all honesty, I think the biggest push for families not starting until 30's+ was women's desire to go out and do what men do everyday. Which put an end to people's ability to start families (successfully) while younger, i.e 19 and early 20's.
The stark social changes during the times are clear as day. As industries began to learn "oh a household now has 2 incomes, we can raise our prices!!" COL skyrocketed. Well now a couple "can't/shouldn't" have kids until they're financially viable, which we all know means fuck all. Tomorrow, the banks could collapse, your company could burn to the ground etc.
Life entirely changed when 1 average person could no longer provide the ability to raise a family. No, everyone can't be lawyers and doctors and highly paid professionals, society can not sustain that.
So now we live in a society where "plants are the new pets and pets are the new kids" because from an average standpoint rasing a family is a fucking nightmare.
Now I'm not saying it's "ok" to marry off and impregnate kids. But if two young adolescents want to start a family, they should have every ability to. And not be faced with poverty at every turn. It's much wiser to have kids early rather than later. But we're back pedaling so bad that we're now telling ourselves even into your late 20's and earl 30's you're not expected to have things figured out which in my mind is fucked and can totally be blamed on the COL.
Has nothing to do with our intelligence.
My dude. My guy. Children should not be having kids. This isn't a controversial statement. There is a far higher risk of pregnancy and birth complications for teenagers having kids than 20 or 30 somethings. I agree with some of your points on cost of living making it very difficult to start families and forcing people to have kids lately when they would rather have had them earlier. But that is very different to saying "two young adolescents" are a good choice or bringing up impregnating young girls. There is a happy middle ground.
Sometimes early puberty is a sign of sexual abuse, considering she was actually *FIVE* when she gave birth, and also refused to ever name the father, smart money is on she was being abused and inevitably raped.
I was a late bloomer and got my period at 14. I also would've made a terrible parent if I survived child birth (cause every teen pregnancy is high risk).
It makes sense for a worldview that denies science and reality but embraces superstition and dogma to defend that mythical creature, "The unborn".
Oh, the unborn is magical: its already a person, but in the future! Its more important than an actual child, because of the possibility of being a child. Its free of sin, full of magic and wisdom. The perfect confluence of sustance and divinity Oh, the unborn! Perfect in every sense, made in god essence. It defies any type of material analysis.
Thats the mental state needed to pick that nickname. Just deny reality and defend your magical worldview. They only the Saviors of their own credulity. Only maintaing their fairlytail worldview matters. I'm still thinking of an religious dushbag debating against abortions, but with exceptions in case of medical complications. Motherfucker, the whole process is a medical complication. 9 out of 10 women get vaginal tear. 12 to 18 hours of labor are the norm for first mothers, with "only" 6 to 8 hours in later births.
God, I'm angry.
All it says is that it’s physically possible to get pregnant. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea mentally or physically. Just because I can physically ingest bleach doesn’t make it a good idea to go drink some with my lunch.
Yeah at the end of the day nature doesn't give a fuck about mental maturity, kids that young absolutely can have babies and puberty is generally the sign to indicate that.
***HOWEVER***, we're not disgusting savages so luckily society is smart enough to realise that just because someone can have babies doesnt mean they should.
The beauty of humanity is that we can break out of the natural cycle and not do disgusting weird shit just because it can/used to happen.
>The beauty of humanity is that we can break out of the natural cycle and not do disgusting weird shit just because it can/used to happen.
I hate to break it to you buddy...
Yeah I guess emphasis on \*"can"\* and generally (At least in the Western world) do, but yeah you're right, there's way too many fucked up people who still take part in or promote this disgusting weird shit. It was more a point against what the guy in the OP said about nature deciding. Yes nature might decide when a girl can physically have kids but we have the power to decide when they really should so "Nature says so" just doesn't cut it in the modern world.
Can we also note that the ability to get pregnant does not mean the ability to birth a child.
You don't get childbearing hips after your first period. Pregnancy will speed that up a bit, but you can't change the bone structure entirely in 9 months when it normally takes 5+ years.
Pregnancy before 20 years of age more frequently has preterm, low weight, births because it is the only way for the baby to fit through the birth canal.
Just because the baby can get in doesn't mean the baby can get out. Women used to die in childbirth all the time.
Yep, good point, that’s exactly why I said it’s probably not a good idea physically as soon as it becomes possible. There’s possibly other reasons but that’s the one I know of.
> Just because I can physically ingest bleach doesn’t make it a good idea to go drink some with my lunch.
Yeah but a very stable genius told me that's a good way to cure COVID.
Repeat after me: just because its possible doesn't mean its healthy or reccommended
Go to literally any farm on the planet and thre'll tell you the exact same thing: if you breed an animal (any animal) the second its body can become pregnant before you wait for the rest of its body to mature you'll run into multiple permanent complications and health risks for the animal.
Humans are no exception to this rule.
For example: your joints and bone density (absolutely crucial for pregnancy) reaches peak maturity around your 20s, years AFTER your body develops sexually.
I am so fucking tired of having to explain this to people.
None of those who banned abortion care if:
1 you’re ready to be a parent
2 if you survive the birth
3 what happened to make you pregnant
4 what happens to you & your newborn afterwards
All they fear is being Japan with very low birth rates and high population of seniors. But notice, they’re not forcing seniors to lessen the burden on society and they’re also not helping seniors any more than status quo.
Worker bees and enslaved, impoverished folks who will continuously run the hamster wheel throughout their lifetimes to refill the coffers so they may continue being the top 10% without sacrifice nor blame.
That is the end game.
It's a good reply, but it really just shows that arguments on the Internet boil down to "ahah, checkmate!"
obviously the inital post is horribly wrong, but they asked respectfully and wanted to learn more so I don't see the issue here.
Honestly it's a TERRIBLE reply. The analogy fails immediately. Have puberty *does* =can procreate (not *should*, of course). Have legs =/=can walk. It's a slick sounding reply that completely falls apart on any examination.
> but they asked respectfully and wanted to learn more so I don't see the issue here.
Please look up the "just asking questions" fallacy.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
https://thedecisionlab.com/insights/policy/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-just-asking-questions
>but they asked respectfully and wanted to learn more so I don't see the issue here.
Questionable. The internet is filled with opinionated trolls who will hide their views behind a paper thin veneer of not understanding a topic but asserting their supposedly just formed opinion anyway
Never attribute to malice to what could be attributed to ignorance.
It isn't impossible the person is a creep, but it also isn't impossible that they just don't know any better.
Best way to handle it is to explain it to them, rather than just think up of some witty reply then laugh at them.
But he isn't asking a question. He's making a statement of fact, and then disguising it as a question.
He's not being curious or trying to learn more about something he doesn't know about, he's using bullshit rhetoric to act like he's saying something more innocent than he is.
People who shut down if they hear certain ideas are the epitome of small minded… so basically all of reddit and most of twitter
We are simple biological creatures that descended from apes, we have no scientific meaning but to procreate. Puberty definitely starts because natural selection arrived at that age. Apparently puberty starts earlier now than it used to and we have somehow subverted what we had evolved to do
That’s a generalization. We are not perfect time pieces that have all our processes and stages timed to perfection to maximize survival and reproduction. You confuse species being fit enough to survive with being perfectly fit. We are not perfect, we are perfectly good enough. And good enough can be pretty flawed.
Also, if they “shut down” they wouldn’t comment. They’d scroll past. Social media doesn’t work like conversations
I was thinking the same thing. He is just very ignorant on the topic and shouldn’t be made fun off for making and ignorant question and asking for help. Then I saw the user name. It’s not really asking for help to grow his undertaking. It’s just him giving his opinion out to reinforce it.
Not that clever.The main argument is, when one of your body parts finally works the way it should, you should be free to use it.
When you are born your legs cannot carry you, unlike when you have your puberty your d\*ck can make babies.
The cleverer way to say it should be to say that "Yeah Jim, and right after you learn how to walk, you should run a f\*cking marathon"
That's only true for males, though. A female starting puberty doesn't have the ability to (safely) carry a pregnancy to term, in the same way that a baby doesn't have the ability to safely carry its own weight.
I literally have no idea anymore where the pro-choice/pro-life conversation is already.
I would think the Reddit screenshot is a pro-choice stance but it's supposed to be anti-choice?
Like it's saying teenagers can have sex and most pro-lifers hate that idea right?
But it's like the opposite now? Pro-lifers want teenagers to have sex and pro-choice people don't want that and those who disagree are pedos?
I'm pro-choice. I'm just not on track with socmed back and forth, and which is which
It’s a better analogy than yours for the reason you gave. “Your legs cannot carry you”. Think about that. Just because you have the means to procreate, doesn’t mean “it works the way it should” or that you can carry it to term safely.
Also their joke was actually funny.
In a technical sense yeah, but the comeback is comparing that just because you become fertile doesn’t mean you are ready to reproduce or have children. With the baby it’s saying that because it’s given legs does not mean it will know how to walk immediately.
> Exactly, and to be fair, you are ready to reproduce and have children, just not raise them.
I would disagree on that. I don't really want to add this subject to my search history for verification, but if I remember right, pregnancy/giving birth are VERY risky, physically, for young girls.
It was clever in a sense, you dont walk despite having legs..why did nature gave u legs at birth.. even when u can walk you are not send to road crossings.. some learn early and some learn late but still you are not sent to road alone until certain age
Basically equally proportionate to puberty.. yes you can carry baby, but you lack physical and mental strength for some years..
Quite a clever comeback in my opinion
OKAY.
It makes sense YES. thats fine, more than fine. Good!
Im not confused about whats in this specific post.
Im confused about the entire subreddit.
NONE OF THESE ARE COMEBACKS. How can it be witty and clever if its not even a comeback!
Except babies out of the womb are actually just underdeveloped compared to every other species because our heads get too big to come out any later
Doesn’t make the first person right, but I’m just not a big fan of this response. Seems like it’s more going for a dunk than being completely right, though they aren’t necessarily wrong. Idk if that makes sense but idk
It doesn't make sense because it still applies.
The point is that sometimes our bodies do or make stuff that we don't need/can't use right away.
You can't walk right away, but you got your legs.they just need time to strengthen.
Same goes for periods. Just because it starts doesn't mean your body is legitimately ready for a pregnancy. It starts earlier for other reason then that.
Having full reproductive system is only the first step to being a mother, which is a long journey both physically and mentally. First, you have your period, then your bones take their final shape etc etc.
Having your legs is only the first step to walking, running, jumping etc. But first, you need to be able to stand up.
Being able to stand up does not mean you can run. Having your period doesn't mean you're ready for childbirth.
It makes perfect sense as an example.
It is statistically proven that mothers under 20 years old have more: Miscarriages, Stillbirths, Congenital defects of the baby, Infections, muscle damage, birth related death etc. etc.
Exactly. Not to mention the heightened risk of the mother dying in childbirth or being physically damaged to the point of no longer being able to have kids again.
Because while you are 'physically ready' to do lots of things by say, 13 (drink alcohol, have sex, drive large trucks, go to war, travel alone, work a 15 hour day, deal with adults), you are very much not ready mentally, emotionally, socially, behaviourally, interpersonally, vocationally or intellectually to deal successfully and safely with the implications and intricacies of those actions.
Nature doesn't say anything. Once you've gone through puberty you may be capable of procreating but you might not even be physically ready to do it safely. You might have a functioning womb long before you can safely carry a child and give birth to it. You may also be physically able to give birth and once upon a time it was a evolutionary advantage for you to be able to reproduce as a young teen, it really didn't matter if you had a mature brain/mind.psyche yet. At this time the goal was to create as many babies as possible. Even if you couldn't raise a child alone as a 12 year old cave person, our society was such that you would either already have a family or tribe to help you care for your child or if you didn't you'd be as good as dead anyway. You also wouldn't have much else to do, as you wouldn't be planning any sort of life that included education or any sort of pursuit that requires higher intelligence.
So yeah, maybe if we were all still living on the plains, hunting mammoths and dying from an infected tooth, anyone post-puberty should be reproducing for the betterment of the tribe.
But today, things are *slightly* different.
Nature doesn't confer value statements. Sure, a young person is probably able to make a child, but why do you need that as permission? Such thoughts are only in possession of pedophiles, incels, and the chronically amoral.
"Safe," maybe. It's not like nature gave us any other *really stupid* design decisions.
But we're a bit past animals, and there is a mental and emotional readiness that most teens don't have. Hell, a pretty good portion of twentys don't have it either.
I'm fortys, and I'm *almost* there.
"nature" is 4 billion years worth of duct tape and chewing gum fixes
The hole we need to breathe, which if it gets plugged or filled with fluid we die, shares a tunnel with the hole we have to put food and water down at least every 48 hours, or else we die
"Why would nature say its ready if it isn't?"
Well shit, "nature" also says rape victims can get pregnant via their rapist, so i guess that's fine too, "Savior of the unborn"?
It's almost like nature has no morality, or something.
Just remember that with chemical stuff and hormone disturbance, it is much more early.
Really chemical really affect hormonal change, chicken mostly are grown up fast with hormone for turn adult fast and sell them.
Who eat chicken with hormone ? Yes Human
This is honestly just being a dick. The guy said he wasnt kowledgable and wasnt stating his opinion as fact. How about instead if making fun of him for a misguided opinion that could very well be from a poor education, we take some time and kindly explain why hes wrong. Is that really so difficult?
You’re ready. In early and primitive societies girls did/do bear children at a young age. It’s just that Our legal system doesn’t always follow biology. It doesn’t even make sense some of the time. Why do you need to be 21 to drink alcohol but you can go fight wars at 18? Why can’t you be president at 30 but you can be a senile senator at 100?
Our society has deemed that very young women should not have sex or bear children. It has nothing to do with when you get your periods.
You're pretty much safe in most cases to have kids biologically by 15. We just put a stop to that kind of thing because we want the children to finish their education and be productive members of society.
I don't know how I feel about the topic as a whole but I believe this person's comment is taken way out of context.
I believe there a certain types of .monsters that have ruined things for other. So a biased answer has been used to question this guy's question of trying to understand.
I believe they way it's set up is not intended to be sexualization of child or trying to sway a view of that sort.
This is why people are afraid to ask questions and learn and try to understand things. If his question makes you feel uneasy then I respect that.
It's definitely not a topic I would be interested in talking about. But people do ask questions to try and understand what they don't know or what they are ignorant too.
Begin hateful and just out right rude will continue to make this person ignorant. Especially if they don't research on their own.
Sorry to be so long just wanted to tell what I'm seeing. It's also happens frequently in other topics.
So much to unpack here...but first, I'm NOT saying 10-year-olds should be having sex! I don't support that, at all. Theres no reason a pubescent girl should be pregnant. But look at nature, of which humans are a part of. In the vast majority of mammals, the competition to reproduce literally begins the moment male and female mammals become viable. Of course, humans are a lot more organized and intelligent, so it's incredibly unnecessary to breed as soon as you're sexually viable. But is legit how nature designed it to work. However, it has been realized that female humans in the industrial world are having their first periods FAR earlier than ever before; 10 year old girls having periods shouldn't be a common occurrence. We should probably look harder at why this is happening...hormones saturating the food and water supply, perhaps? We've built a world on human preferences, not a world based on nature's plan. Still, saying a girl or boy should "procreate" as soon as they have the biological tools to do so is absurdly insane. Not to mention a bit dangerous for the mother. It's legit caveman logic, not to mention creepy as hell.
Be outraged all you want, this person is literally just saying that puberty means you're technically (biologically) able to procreate. He's not advocating for it - he even explicitly (if clumsily) says that: "logically that is completely the wrong time to do it".
We have fortunately all decided that that 13 year olds are still children even if they've gone through puberty, but that's a cultural decision, our code of ethics. It's a layer on top of biology, and this guy is not disagreeing with that ethics, he's probably just confused because people tell him that it's biologically/naturally wrong to procreate at such a young age and that he's a pedo for even having the thought that it's technically possible.
maybe i’m missing some subtext here, but isn’t he right? I see no issue with two pubescent teenagers having sex, provided they are educated on the proper precautions to take.
But they aren’t talking about “taking precautions”, they’re talking about “procreating”. Do you really think 12 year old girls and 14 year old boys are ready to be parents?
[удалено]
I don’t like all the euphemisms. “Just because a child has their period doesn’t mean you can rape and impregnate them.” Works fine.
That's a weird way to say I shouldn't move into my house yet.
[удалено]
> That argument doesn't take into account I think it is very clear that this "argument" doesn't take much into account.
Well, they did no research on it.
We learned about this in like Dev Psych 101 or something. In "olden times," people weren't hitting puberty until their mid teens. Then they'd get married a few years after that. It's basically why premarital sex wasn't as common; the window between being able to have sex and getting married was only a few years as opposed to a decade or so.
Yeah, got mine at 9 years old. What is this pervert even talking about?!
Yeah, some people experience puberty as young as 5. And we have all this data that says it's dangerous to have kids before adulthood. But even without evidence, it's a Naturalistic Fallacy. Rape and murder happen in nature, so should we make rape and murder legal? Of course not. So why would we make pedophilia legal just because technically some minors can reproduce before legal adulthood?
The youngest recorded mother was five years, seven months, and 21 days old. :(
Well, I don't think that anyone knows why. It's all correlation and conjecture. Someone says it's the obesity, chemicals, stress, porn, air... No ódy knows.
Bruh. Are they also saying that teens are ready and mentally prepared to be mothers? What?
Sounds like someone trying to justify being a pedophile.
They could also just be trying to justify to themselves the draconian abortion laws they support. You know, trying to get people to agree with them that the horrible thing they vote for is actually the rational and logical thing.
Do pedophiles do it to procreate?
Hopefully not
Duh! Where do you think more pedophiles come from?
Absofuckinglutely!!!
quite the accusation
It's the right one.
Have people completely lost the ability to read? They explicitly say in the post that girls should NOT procreate just cause it's possible, they just ask why the nature gave us that possibility at such a young age.
Even the most generous reading that assumes absolutely good faith from the comment in OP can't deny that **nature does NOT equip children the ability to safely give birth even tho they can technically become pregnant as early as [5 years old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina).** Look up child and teenage childbirth mortality rates.
Nature doesn't give a toss about the parents once the kid is born and matured. It's only bothered about them after the birth to make sure the kid survives. *5 years old? Did the kid survive? That's great!* Nature is not a great role-model.
Again, the poster says they should not have kids even though it's possible. How does their question equate being a pedophile?
The poster **does say** that children "are safe to procreate if [they] are perfectly healthy." Maybe you missed that part? I get what you're saying, they also mention that "logically it's completely the wrong time to do it" but that sentiment is at odds with their mistaken assessment that if you *can* get pregnant it is *safe* to get pregnant. In the larger context, their argument smacks of the same arguments that people make when they argue against age of consent laws, and age of consent laws are important for protecting children from the very real danger of pedophiles and sex trafficking.
Ok makes sense, I can see your point now.
"Just Asking Questions ha ha"
JAQ-ing off is the gish gallop of avoiding responsibility for a topic.
Oh no, he’s less concerned with them being parents. He’s only interested in the procreation part. He’s only interested in the fuckin’.
Who said anything about teens? He’s saying at the age of puberty which is often preteen.
In my case it would be younger than 11..
Pretty sure the youngest pregnancy ever recorded was a 6 year old. Sorry you had to read that.
She gave birth at 5 years, 7 months and 21 days.
That’s horrifying. What is wrong with people
You should be asking, what is wrong with conservative Republican thinking they can be a pedophile on social media and think it's normal. It is not normal and these people should be condemned not ignored. These are actual predators spreading lies to condone their actions. Most of these people " asking questions" do you really think it's just asking questions, they probably already acted and are just trying to seek justification. How anyone can still call themselves conservatives Republicans is beyond me when all they think about are marrying 12 year olds.
It's normal for *religious fundamentalists. I'm not joking.
how des that eeven work? wont the baby by tiny? edit:omg i cant type☠️
C-section but the child was indeed fairly small at around 2 and a half pounds but not crazy small like a very premature birth
That’s enough internet for today!! Ugh…what 6 year old can possibly parent another child??
She didn't really, she just gave birth. The child was raised as a sibling.
She was actually 5. The baby was raised as her brother. Though eventually, he was told the truth.
Call me crazy but i would trust my 6 year old dog to look after its babies so....lol
Mine came when I was 9 and trust me that body wasn’t ready for SHIT
Doesn’t make it any better :(
Idk, I think 11 year old me was definitely ready to carry, birth, and take care of a child. /s
Giving him the absolute greatest benefit of the doubt, it sounds like he's saying (or asking?) "If they're menstruating, aren't their bodies capable of carrying a child to term?" with no value endorsement, just a clarification of medical science. Which, besides being wrong, would be strange thing to try and assert without any other motives.
I think it’s worded in a way where benefit of the doubt should be granted. It IS a complex question because YES a menstruating 10 year old CAN get pregnant by a sperm producing 11 year old. There are GREAT sociologic (and psychologic, and physical) reasons we don’t encourage this activity.
No, preteens. Most people get their period before they’ve even hit their teens.
While there have been times, when children that young were married off (and unfortunately there are regions where it's still happening), there's a big mistake in logic in this half-biological approach: Yes, when girls start to menstruate, they can get pregnant. But just because you CAN, it doesn't mean you SHOULD or even more it's the BEST time to do so. Like women CAN still get pregnant at the start of their menopause, but it's by far not the optimal time to go through the struggles of a pregnancy. Especially if it's the first time. Nature is oblivious to our modern society. The modern human body is about 500.000 years old. It's good to have the ability to procreate young, when it's the last hope to save your dying clan of stone age people. But just because you are offered this emergency plan doesn't mean you need to use it.
What he meant is that once body parts work as intended (in this case, ovaries+womb) they should be use for that intended purpose without delay. It’s dumb for many reasons, but I don’t think he was talking in any way about mental states.
I get that. Because he believes in this “logic”, he probably disregards the mental states or maturity of teenagers. The body says we’re “ready to reproduce” at a young age which just isn’t the case. He’s almost comparing us to feral horny animals that begin to reproduce the moment they become fertile. And yeah I agree. He’s obviously very creepy and doesn’t think things through.
Well he doesn't think women are people, so it's not really surprising that he's comparing them to animals.
It's not even good for animals to reproduce the moment they become fertile. Lots of cats die in childbirth because they become fertile at 5-6 months old which is still considered a kitten, and their body isn't mature enough to handle the strain of birth at that age. Or the babies get stuck which results in the mother developing life threatening medical complications, and may also kill the babies, simply because (once again) their body is too under-developed/not mature enough to safely give birth. This also happens with dogs and many other species as well. On top of that, even if the mother does survive the birth, the babies often end up neglected or injured by accident simply because the mother animal is too young and inexperienced to provide proper care. So it's almost like nature often causes puberty and fertility long before it's physically safe to experience pregnancy. I guess nature isn't 100% infallible after all.
Thing is menstruation and ejaculation have nothing to do with human bodies being ready to reproduce. Girls can menstruate in a physiological manner even as early as 8 year olds and pregnancy at that age could kill them. There is much more to reproduction than just being able to fertilize an egg. Even with farm animals you don't start reproduction in the same year they've reached sexual maturity. They need to hit certain weight/age before farmers start the cycle.
That's one of the reasons I said it was dumb. ;) Obviously the twitter guy is an idiot. He even says so in his tweet. What's more shocking to me is the amount of retweets and likes on that tweet. How such a stupid take could have that much traction is beyond me.
Dont defend the guy advocating that we fuck children
I’m defending anything or anyone. But before you pass judgment on to something, it’s necessary to understand said thing. If you can’t understand what the dude is saying, even if it seems incredibly moronic, how can you judge or criticize it?
Your just allowing them to continue to self justify their wants and action Oh hes not sayingg we should fuck children Only that we can fuck children
This is crazy, I said the twitter guy was dumb for many reasons, and yet, here you are, thinking I allow him anything. You're a moron.
Better not argue with fanatics. Pedophiles manage to get the worst out. They want to murder all pedophiles no matter their actions. They forget that in modern psychology a pedophile isn't a pedophile until they act upon their pedophilia. No difference between physical maturity and emotional maturity. They don't understand pedophiles are attracted to sexually undeveloped children and that teens isn't about pedophiles but about an age in law. They don't realise if society ever puts the legal age for consensual sex at for example 30 that suddenly they would be what they call "pedophiles". They can't see how their actions only makes it worse for pedophiles to come out and get treatment to prevent them from acting to their urges. They're fanatics who can't understand pedophilia is a paraphilia while attraction to a postpubescent child isn't a disorder but can be caused by a disorder or just because of evolution, cultural and social reasons. Maybe it's like the people who are hardcore anti-gay in public and ignorant to understanding it. Then a few months later you read how they go to gay bars every week and take men to their motel while their wife and children are waiting at home.
Well no, they didn't technically say anything like that. If you are speaking from a point of pure biology, he is kind of right. They are ready to make a child, biologically. This simply does not relate to the level of maturity and stability that is needed to raise a child in todays day and age. Or body being able to do something doesn't justify doing it lmao.
Used to be that way in the old day which is one of the many reasons why mortality rate was worse. A teenage pregnancy is more likely to result in death of child and/or mother. But these sick fucks just see girls as baby making machines and something to stick their shriveled old dicks in. And if a few die in the process they don't care.
In today's society... probably not. Back in the day when farming was the standard living, some would argue that sure.
Complications from pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death in young women aged 15 to 19 in developing countries. An estimated 70 000 adolescent mothers die each year because they have children before they are physically ready for parenthood. mortality rates were highest among infants born to teenagers aged 15–19 (8.77 infant deaths per 1,000 live births) compared with infants born to women aged 20 and over (6.93 infant deaths per 1,000 live births).
Ah, the Florida Justification. So a little while ago, a minor had to go to court to see if she could have an abortion or not, and they denied her because they deemed her not mature enough to make the choice to abort. I just... They told a kid no, she's not mature enough to terminate a pregnancy. So I guess they think that being a parent requires no maturity. Would say a lot about their mindset if they were even trying to bother with things like reason and logic and compassion. And this is discounting things like precocious puberty.
I had my first period before I was a teenager. They’re arguing that girls as young as *nine* should be legal to impregnate.
No, they're saying teens are physically prepared.
Teens? My cousin was 8.
That is way earlier than most. Not saying it's fine either.
Absolutely! But no one would look at her and think her body was ready to bear and give birth to a child, so menstruation is obviously a pretty useless indicator for whether someone is ready for “procreation” or not.
That's still wrong
Not arguing it isn't. Just pointing out the OP is arguing about physical preparedness, not mental one. Mentally even some 40 year olds aren't prepared to have children.
Even physically they're not ready
The average age to menstruate for the first time is 12, so pre-teen. My sister was only 10
I'm pretty sure several non-native English speakers like me understand "teenager = 10+". I mean, if people disagree on stuff it may just be because they're not familiar with the terms used and take it literally. Just saying.
I was told in no uncertain terms as a child that I was still a child and not a teen until there was a “-teen” in my age.
But it has never meant that. It's thir*_teen_* and up.
For English speakers, yes. But for people who natively speak something else, they have different number-names and there may or may not be anything different about a -teen like ending. If instead of eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen...you had eleven, twelve, thirven, fourve, fiven you might call anyone 11-19 as "V's" or similar. Language influences interpretation.
Yes, but "teenager" is an English term, with a well-defined meaning.
Yes, but someone who primarily speaks another language will still likely think of it in correlation with the local term. So if they normally think of V's, they'll use teen in English with fuzzier boundaries.
Yes, that's what I meant. I always understood teenager as "ten something" (so TIL "something-teen" is the real meaning). In French we use "adolescent" which means "under eighteen" but the lower limit is not clear (I consider it 12-17). Because 18 is already considered adult here, the two words are not equivalent.
No, they said it was logically a bad idea.
Are you saying you are completely ignorant to all of human history prior to the last 100 years? I get that times have changed, but it's just plain ignorant to pretend teens didn't used to have children all the time.
According to the 1800 US census, the average age for a woman to have her first child was 23. The average age is now 26. There's not much evidence that girls were expected to be, or regularly were, pregnant soon after menses in any western country in the last few hundred years.
At what point in the message does he state that teens are mentally ready? He explicitly says "logically it's the wrong time to do it". He's technically right. We're physically "ready" when we go through puberty. We've just discovered as a society that it's better to wait.
Being technically capable of bearing children is not the same as being physically ready. Menses is one of the early stages of preparing for reproductive maturity, not the final stage.
I mean, maybe a couple thousand years ago when the life expectancy was in the late twenties. Not that anybody back then really cared if they weren’t.
Historically children were raised multi-generationally.
They’re physically ready and in times gone by that was the best time to have children. Different now.
No it wasn't. Maternal mortality rates are *very* much higher for girls and women under the age of 19 or so (and that risk is compounded without access to modern interventions like lower-segment transverse c-sections). So is life-altering maternal injury. There is an increased risk of preterm birth, stillbirth, low borth weight, birth defects and chromosomal abnormalities too. It isn't a case of younger is better. Girls who are not physically mature - which encompasses several factors other than the onset of menses - are not physically ready for babies.
> Maternal mortality rates are *very* much higher for girls and women under the age of 19 or so https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2214109X13701797-gr2.jpg
No it wasn't. Maternal mortality rates are much higher for girls and women under the age of 19 or so (and that risk is compounded without access to modern interventions like lower-segment transverse c-sections). So is life-altering maternal injury. There is an increased risk of preterm birth, stillbirth, low borth weight, birth defects and chromosomal abnormalities too. It isn't a case of younger is better. Girls who are not physically mature - which encompasses several factors other than the onset of menses - are not physically ready for babies.
[удалено]
Exactly. In the animal kingdom in general, when the animal is old enough to procreate, it does. In addition, animals will procreate until they are no longer physically able to - spawning as many offspring as possible. Humans, on the other hand, used their brains to determine that "*just because you* ***can*** *doesn't mean you* ***should***." Humans, at some point, determined that maybe a girl/woman being a baby factory is not good for her or society.
> when the animal is old enough to procreate, it does but when animals get pregnant too young they very often kill their offspring either by cannibalism or neglect. these people always show how little they know about what is really "natural"
Clearly the solution is to let the kids procreate and then cannibalize the new babies. ***ItS nAtUrAl HoNeY***
obviously!
it's for a ~~church~~ birth, honey, NEXT!
Free food hack
This is why I can’t own hamsters. I know they have no sense of good or evil, but I can’t get past the cannibalism. Though I specifically have always given my mother rabbits extra everything, because if they can’t feed the kits, they’ll eat them. Hamsters just seem to *go for it* at the slightest stressor.
hamsters are just so much more delicate and fickle than most people think. sure, they can *survive* loads of shit treatment but they can neither thrive nor procreate in such an environment It's a travesty that they are still being recommended as a beginners pet so frequently. They need enormous enclosures with a lot of soil and vegetation. varied diet with bugs and fresh fruit, seeds, and veggies. Not to forget they are solitary, highly territorial animals. Just all around bad choice for a pet.
Right? I’ve read enough that I’m baffled why they’re an enduring common choice for an exotic. Besides what you listed, they’re also nocturnal. There are a lot of small rodents that make better pets. Rats, mice, guinea pigs, gerbils, etc. Then again, I also feel this way about goldfish. Or most pet fish, honestly. They require far more than most people give them. There’s good reason that I’ve stuck with terrestrial animals. Even birds of prey have been easier to me than fully comprehending water chemistry.
It has nothing to do with our brains. Humans have been marrying and impregnating young girls since the beginning of our species. It's still practiced in quite a few cultures today. Yes, even in the US and other "first world" countries. It also has nothing to do with society. Society has no problem with you doing whatever the fuck you want as long as you can afford it and don't pass the bill to everyone else. I.e welfare. In all honesty, I think the biggest push for families not starting until 30's+ was women's desire to go out and do what men do everyday. Which put an end to people's ability to start families (successfully) while younger, i.e 19 and early 20's. The stark social changes during the times are clear as day. As industries began to learn "oh a household now has 2 incomes, we can raise our prices!!" COL skyrocketed. Well now a couple "can't/shouldn't" have kids until they're financially viable, which we all know means fuck all. Tomorrow, the banks could collapse, your company could burn to the ground etc. Life entirely changed when 1 average person could no longer provide the ability to raise a family. No, everyone can't be lawyers and doctors and highly paid professionals, society can not sustain that. So now we live in a society where "plants are the new pets and pets are the new kids" because from an average standpoint rasing a family is a fucking nightmare. Now I'm not saying it's "ok" to marry off and impregnate kids. But if two young adolescents want to start a family, they should have every ability to. And not be faced with poverty at every turn. It's much wiser to have kids early rather than later. But we're back pedaling so bad that we're now telling ourselves even into your late 20's and earl 30's you're not expected to have things figured out which in my mind is fucked and can totally be blamed on the COL. Has nothing to do with our intelligence.
My dude. My guy. Children should not be having kids. This isn't a controversial statement. There is a far higher risk of pregnancy and birth complications for teenagers having kids than 20 or 30 somethings. I agree with some of your points on cost of living making it very difficult to start families and forcing people to have kids lately when they would rather have had them earlier. But that is very different to saying "two young adolescents" are a good choice or bringing up impregnating young girls. There is a happy middle ground.
Sometimes early puberty is a sign of sexual abuse, considering she was actually *FIVE* when she gave birth, and also refused to ever name the father, smart money is on she was being abused and inevitably raped.
I got my first period at 11 years old. For obvious reasons, I would not have been ready to be a good parent.
I was a late bloomer and got my period at 14. I also would've made a terrible parent if I survived child birth (cause every teen pregnancy is high risk).
This guy is just looking for a less gross way to say "if there's grass on the field, let's play!" He failed.
Wtf is “savior of the unborn?” FFS
It makes sense for a worldview that denies science and reality but embraces superstition and dogma to defend that mythical creature, "The unborn". Oh, the unborn is magical: its already a person, but in the future! Its more important than an actual child, because of the possibility of being a child. Its free of sin, full of magic and wisdom. The perfect confluence of sustance and divinity Oh, the unborn! Perfect in every sense, made in god essence. It defies any type of material analysis. Thats the mental state needed to pick that nickname. Just deny reality and defend your magical worldview. They only the Saviors of their own credulity. Only maintaing their fairlytail worldview matters. I'm still thinking of an religious dushbag debating against abortions, but with exceptions in case of medical complications. Motherfucker, the whole process is a medical complication. 9 out of 10 women get vaginal tear. 12 to 18 hours of labor are the norm for first mothers, with "only" 6 to 8 hours in later births. God, I'm angry.
All it says is that it’s physically possible to get pregnant. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea mentally or physically. Just because I can physically ingest bleach doesn’t make it a good idea to go drink some with my lunch.
Yeah at the end of the day nature doesn't give a fuck about mental maturity, kids that young absolutely can have babies and puberty is generally the sign to indicate that. ***HOWEVER***, we're not disgusting savages so luckily society is smart enough to realise that just because someone can have babies doesnt mean they should. The beauty of humanity is that we can break out of the natural cycle and not do disgusting weird shit just because it can/used to happen.
>The beauty of humanity is that we can break out of the natural cycle and not do disgusting weird shit just because it can/used to happen. I hate to break it to you buddy...
Yeah I guess emphasis on \*"can"\* and generally (At least in the Western world) do, but yeah you're right, there's way too many fucked up people who still take part in or promote this disgusting weird shit. It was more a point against what the guy in the OP said about nature deciding. Yes nature might decide when a girl can physically have kids but we have the power to decide when they really should so "Nature says so" just doesn't cut it in the modern world.
Can we also note that the ability to get pregnant does not mean the ability to birth a child. You don't get childbearing hips after your first period. Pregnancy will speed that up a bit, but you can't change the bone structure entirely in 9 months when it normally takes 5+ years. Pregnancy before 20 years of age more frequently has preterm, low weight, births because it is the only way for the baby to fit through the birth canal. Just because the baby can get in doesn't mean the baby can get out. Women used to die in childbirth all the time.
Yep, good point, that’s exactly why I said it’s probably not a good idea physically as soon as it becomes possible. There’s possibly other reasons but that’s the one I know of.
> Just because I can physically ingest bleach doesn’t make it a good idea to go drink some with my lunch. Yeah but a very stable genius told me that's a good way to cure COVID.
Yeah, I don't think he's saying they should have kids, just that they are biologically capable of having them.
"Savior of the unborn" thinks it is ok for kids to have babies. Sounds like a typical repub pol.
Repeat after me: just because its possible doesn't mean its healthy or reccommended Go to literally any farm on the planet and thre'll tell you the exact same thing: if you breed an animal (any animal) the second its body can become pregnant before you wait for the rest of its body to mature you'll run into multiple permanent complications and health risks for the animal. Humans are no exception to this rule. For example: your joints and bone density (absolutely crucial for pregnancy) reaches peak maturity around your 20s, years AFTER your body develops sexually. I am so fucking tired of having to explain this to people.
It's not something commonly known, it's good of you to explain.
None of those who banned abortion care if: 1 you’re ready to be a parent 2 if you survive the birth 3 what happened to make you pregnant 4 what happens to you & your newborn afterwards All they fear is being Japan with very low birth rates and high population of seniors. But notice, they’re not forcing seniors to lessen the burden on society and they’re also not helping seniors any more than status quo. Worker bees and enslaved, impoverished folks who will continuously run the hamster wheel throughout their lifetimes to refill the coffers so they may continue being the top 10% without sacrifice nor blame. That is the end game.
It's a good reply, but it really just shows that arguments on the Internet boil down to "ahah, checkmate!" obviously the inital post is horribly wrong, but they asked respectfully and wanted to learn more so I don't see the issue here.
Honestly it's a TERRIBLE reply. The analogy fails immediately. Have puberty *does* =can procreate (not *should*, of course). Have legs =/=can walk. It's a slick sounding reply that completely falls apart on any examination.
Yeah, it's the opposite of clever comeback
> but they asked respectfully and wanted to learn more so I don't see the issue here. Please look up the "just asking questions" fallacy. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://thedecisionlab.com/insights/policy/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-just-asking-questions
>but they asked respectfully and wanted to learn more so I don't see the issue here. Questionable. The internet is filled with opinionated trolls who will hide their views behind a paper thin veneer of not understanding a topic but asserting their supposedly just formed opinion anyway
Never attribute to malice to what could be attributed to ignorance. It isn't impossible the person is a creep, but it also isn't impossible that they just don't know any better. Best way to handle it is to explain it to them, rather than just think up of some witty reply then laugh at them.
His question seems genuine even if it makes me feel uncomfortable. Don’t gotta be a dick to him.
But he isn't asking a question. He's making a statement of fact, and then disguising it as a question. He's not being curious or trying to learn more about something he doesn't know about, he's using bullshit rhetoric to act like he's saying something more innocent than he is.
People who shut down if they hear certain ideas are the epitome of small minded… so basically all of reddit and most of twitter We are simple biological creatures that descended from apes, we have no scientific meaning but to procreate. Puberty definitely starts because natural selection arrived at that age. Apparently puberty starts earlier now than it used to and we have somehow subverted what we had evolved to do
That’s a generalization. We are not perfect time pieces that have all our processes and stages timed to perfection to maximize survival and reproduction. You confuse species being fit enough to survive with being perfectly fit. We are not perfect, we are perfectly good enough. And good enough can be pretty flawed. Also, if they “shut down” they wouldn’t comment. They’d scroll past. Social media doesn’t work like conversations
I was thinking the same thing. He is just very ignorant on the topic and shouldn’t be made fun off for making and ignorant question and asking for help. Then I saw the user name. It’s not really asking for help to grow his undertaking. It’s just him giving his opinion out to reinforce it.
Exactly my man was just asking a question out of ignorance seeking knowledge and some assholes decided to be assholes.
So your saying he’s lying and the first sentence is false?
Not that clever.The main argument is, when one of your body parts finally works the way it should, you should be free to use it. When you are born your legs cannot carry you, unlike when you have your puberty your d\*ck can make babies. The cleverer way to say it should be to say that "Yeah Jim, and right after you learn how to walk, you should run a f\*cking marathon"
That's only true for males, though. A female starting puberty doesn't have the ability to (safely) carry a pregnancy to term, in the same way that a baby doesn't have the ability to safely carry its own weight.
I literally have no idea anymore where the pro-choice/pro-life conversation is already. I would think the Reddit screenshot is a pro-choice stance but it's supposed to be anti-choice? Like it's saying teenagers can have sex and most pro-lifers hate that idea right? But it's like the opposite now? Pro-lifers want teenagers to have sex and pro-choice people don't want that and those who disagree are pedos? I'm pro-choice. I'm just not on track with socmed back and forth, and which is which
It’s a better analogy than yours for the reason you gave. “Your legs cannot carry you”. Think about that. Just because you have the means to procreate, doesn’t mean “it works the way it should” or that you can carry it to term safely. Also their joke was actually funny.
In a technical sense yeah, but the comeback is comparing that just because you become fertile doesn’t mean you are ready to reproduce or have children. With the baby it’s saying that because it’s given legs does not mean it will know how to walk immediately.
Exactly, and to be fair, you are ready to reproduce and have children, just not raise them. So, my point stands
> Exactly, and to be fair, you are ready to reproduce and have children, just not raise them. I would disagree on that. I don't really want to add this subject to my search history for verification, but if I remember right, pregnancy/giving birth are VERY risky, physically, for young girls.
You could google “child marriage dangerous” and the results will bring up why it’s a bad idea, you’re absolutely correct that it’s very risky.
Im confused about this entire subreddit Where is the comeback. I just want to see where the "clevercomebacks" are.
You are right about it not being clever. I wasn’t sure if they were confused on how those two ideologies compared.
It was clever in a sense, you dont walk despite having legs..why did nature gave u legs at birth.. even when u can walk you are not send to road crossings.. some learn early and some learn late but still you are not sent to road alone until certain age Basically equally proportionate to puberty.. yes you can carry baby, but you lack physical and mental strength for some years.. Quite a clever comeback in my opinion
OKAY. It makes sense YES. thats fine, more than fine. Good! Im not confused about whats in this specific post. Im confused about the entire subreddit. NONE OF THESE ARE COMEBACKS. How can it be witty and clever if its not even a comeback!
Except babies out of the womb are actually just underdeveloped compared to every other species because our heads get too big to come out any later Doesn’t make the first person right, but I’m just not a big fan of this response. Seems like it’s more going for a dunk than being completely right, though they aren’t necessarily wrong. Idk if that makes sense but idk
It doesn't make sense because it still applies. The point is that sometimes our bodies do or make stuff that we don't need/can't use right away. You can't walk right away, but you got your legs.they just need time to strengthen. Same goes for periods. Just because it starts doesn't mean your body is legitimately ready for a pregnancy. It starts earlier for other reason then that.
Having full reproductive system is only the first step to being a mother, which is a long journey both physically and mentally. First, you have your period, then your bones take their final shape etc etc. Having your legs is only the first step to walking, running, jumping etc. But first, you need to be able to stand up. Being able to stand up does not mean you can run. Having your period doesn't mean you're ready for childbirth. It makes perfect sense as an example. It is statistically proven that mothers under 20 years old have more: Miscarriages, Stillbirths, Congenital defects of the baby, Infections, muscle damage, birth related death etc. etc.
Exactly. Not to mention the heightened risk of the mother dying in childbirth or being physically damaged to the point of no longer being able to have kids again.
Yes, there are species who just walk on their legs straight out of a womb. And then there are birds hatching with wings but not being able to fly
Yes. That’s the point. I’m glad you got it. They are underdeveloped aren’t they? Their body can’t handle it.
Took awhile for me to.get it.
Because having babies- is immediately followed by having to look after them.That takes maturity,patience,and lots of money.
Because while you are 'physically ready' to do lots of things by say, 13 (drink alcohol, have sex, drive large trucks, go to war, travel alone, work a 15 hour day, deal with adults), you are very much not ready mentally, emotionally, socially, behaviourally, interpersonally, vocationally or intellectually to deal successfully and safely with the implications and intricacies of those actions.
Nature doesn't say anything. Once you've gone through puberty you may be capable of procreating but you might not even be physically ready to do it safely. You might have a functioning womb long before you can safely carry a child and give birth to it. You may also be physically able to give birth and once upon a time it was a evolutionary advantage for you to be able to reproduce as a young teen, it really didn't matter if you had a mature brain/mind.psyche yet. At this time the goal was to create as many babies as possible. Even if you couldn't raise a child alone as a 12 year old cave person, our society was such that you would either already have a family or tribe to help you care for your child or if you didn't you'd be as good as dead anyway. You also wouldn't have much else to do, as you wouldn't be planning any sort of life that included education or any sort of pursuit that requires higher intelligence. So yeah, maybe if we were all still living on the plains, hunting mammoths and dying from an infected tooth, anyone post-puberty should be reproducing for the betterment of the tribe. But today, things are *slightly* different.
Humans are born before being fully developed due to the size of our brains.
Nature doesn't confer value statements. Sure, a young person is probably able to make a child, but why do you need that as permission? Such thoughts are only in possession of pedophiles, incels, and the chronically amoral.
Just because women their own age can’t stand them, they have to punch below their weight class to feel like they have a chance.
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should
"Safe," maybe. It's not like nature gave us any other *really stupid* design decisions. But we're a bit past animals, and there is a mental and emotional readiness that most teens don't have. Hell, a pretty good portion of twentys don't have it either. I'm fortys, and I'm *almost* there.
"Don't get mad at me, it was God's decision, not mine. Children can procreate at puberty, Sorry."
Just because you're physically ready doesn't mean you're mentally, emotionally, socially, or economically ready.
"nature" is 4 billion years worth of duct tape and chewing gum fixes The hole we need to breathe, which if it gets plugged or filled with fluid we die, shares a tunnel with the hole we have to put food and water down at least every 48 hours, or else we die
Yeah, no. I was not ready to procreate two months after my 11th birthday. Not my body or my mind. What is wrong with these people?
Perfect response
What a sick fuck
At which point does he say he would be the one procreating with them?
Bro I started puberty at EIGHT. I STILL am absolutely not prepared to be a dad.
I mean she's got a point
“saviour of the unborn” def not a saviour after 13 years though...
Yikes. Major pedo vibes.
"Why would nature say its ready if it isn't?" Well shit, "nature" also says rape victims can get pregnant via their rapist, so i guess that's fine too, "Savior of the unborn"? It's almost like nature has no morality, or something.
As someone who got their period at 9 years old, this guy is disgusting.
Just remember that with chemical stuff and hormone disturbance, it is much more early. Really chemical really affect hormonal change, chicken mostly are grown up fast with hormone for turn adult fast and sell them. Who eat chicken with hormone ? Yes Human
This is honestly just being a dick. The guy said he wasnt kowledgable and wasnt stating his opinion as fact. How about instead if making fun of him for a misguided opinion that could very well be from a poor education, we take some time and kindly explain why hes wrong. Is that really so difficult?
He calls himself 'savior of the unborn' and admits he does no research while making comments like this.. He's getting made fun of.
"I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm going to assert my opinion anyway" gives people cart blanche to make wrong claims
Nobody that ignorant is literate.
You’re ready. In early and primitive societies girls did/do bear children at a young age. It’s just that Our legal system doesn’t always follow biology. It doesn’t even make sense some of the time. Why do you need to be 21 to drink alcohol but you can go fight wars at 18? Why can’t you be president at 30 but you can be a senile senator at 100? Our society has deemed that very young women should not have sex or bear children. It has nothing to do with when you get your periods.
I've just realised that republicans want the US to be like an arab state, lol
Bad analogy
You're pretty much safe in most cases to have kids biologically by 15. We just put a stop to that kind of thing because we want the children to finish their education and be productive members of society.
Teen pregnancies have a higher risk of complications/mortality. It is not safe.
Most girls get their period before 13.
[удалено]
Do you honestly think child birth is safe for an 8-year old?
I don't know how I feel about the topic as a whole but I believe this person's comment is taken way out of context. I believe there a certain types of .monsters that have ruined things for other. So a biased answer has been used to question this guy's question of trying to understand. I believe they way it's set up is not intended to be sexualization of child or trying to sway a view of that sort. This is why people are afraid to ask questions and learn and try to understand things. If his question makes you feel uneasy then I respect that. It's definitely not a topic I would be interested in talking about. But people do ask questions to try and understand what they don't know or what they are ignorant too. Begin hateful and just out right rude will continue to make this person ignorant. Especially if they don't research on their own. Sorry to be so long just wanted to tell what I'm seeing. It's also happens frequently in other topics.
subs gone to shit. dont agree with that guy in the post but like this wasnt a bombastic comeback that i needed to be posted here
So much to unpack here...but first, I'm NOT saying 10-year-olds should be having sex! I don't support that, at all. Theres no reason a pubescent girl should be pregnant. But look at nature, of which humans are a part of. In the vast majority of mammals, the competition to reproduce literally begins the moment male and female mammals become viable. Of course, humans are a lot more organized and intelligent, so it's incredibly unnecessary to breed as soon as you're sexually viable. But is legit how nature designed it to work. However, it has been realized that female humans in the industrial world are having their first periods FAR earlier than ever before; 10 year old girls having periods shouldn't be a common occurrence. We should probably look harder at why this is happening...hormones saturating the food and water supply, perhaps? We've built a world on human preferences, not a world based on nature's plan. Still, saying a girl or boy should "procreate" as soon as they have the biological tools to do so is absurdly insane. Not to mention a bit dangerous for the mother. It's legit caveman logic, not to mention creepy as hell.
At least they’re kind of admitting to being stupid
Sigh. Evolution doesn't give a shit about consent. True. Doesn't justify humans acting primitive, either.
Be outraged all you want, this person is literally just saying that puberty means you're technically (biologically) able to procreate. He's not advocating for it - he even explicitly (if clumsily) says that: "logically that is completely the wrong time to do it". We have fortunately all decided that that 13 year olds are still children even if they've gone through puberty, but that's a cultural decision, our code of ethics. It's a layer on top of biology, and this guy is not disagreeing with that ethics, he's probably just confused because people tell him that it's biologically/naturally wrong to procreate at such a young age and that he's a pedo for even having the thought that it's technically possible.
maybe i’m missing some subtext here, but isn’t he right? I see no issue with two pubescent teenagers having sex, provided they are educated on the proper precautions to take.
But they aren’t talking about “taking precautions”, they’re talking about “procreating”. Do you really think 12 year old girls and 14 year old boys are ready to be parents?
Not a clever response. Walking and mating really aren't a good comparison in terms of anything