![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gaming News, Cthulhu, Sex Crimes
Recently read from the beginning to the current issue; The Order of the Stick, one of the funniest pieces of work from gamer culture. Roleplaying reviews this week included RuneQuest (3rd ed) and a very old Traveller module, Chamax and The Horde. Played some Traveller: The New Era on Tuesday and Dungeon! Dragonlords Dreamland scenerio went very well except for a very strange visitor.
Last night attended the arthouse film gathering in Collingwood with the usual suspects (Brendan, 2600AU crew, Paul from Polyester). Gorged ourselves at "The New Raffles" (opposite The Tote) and then watched three H.P. Lovecraft inspired films, including "The Call of Cthulhu", a 2005 film in a 1920s style, the very cheesy From Beyond and Dagon. On a related note, fishermen in New Zealand have caught a half-tonne squid. Ry'leh is nearby you know...I-ai! I-ai! Cthulhu, Ftan'g!
The war against youth marches on; a 13 year old in Italy gets pregnant to her 15 year old boyfriend. Her parents and the courts force her to have an abortion (link in Italian). A couple (one 16 the other 17) exchange sexual images of themselves to each other. They are charged and convicted of child pornography (from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
erudito. In good ol Denver, a 13 year old girl has been charged as both offender and victim for having sex with her 12 year old boyfriend.
Last night attended the arthouse film gathering in Collingwood with the usual suspects (Brendan, 2600AU crew, Paul from Polyester). Gorged ourselves at "The New Raffles" (opposite The Tote) and then watched three H.P. Lovecraft inspired films, including "The Call of Cthulhu", a 2005 film in a 1920s style, the very cheesy From Beyond and Dagon. On a related note, fishermen in New Zealand have caught a half-tonne squid. Ry'leh is nearby you know...I-ai! I-ai! Cthulhu, Ftan'g!
The war against youth marches on; a 13 year old in Italy gets pregnant to her 15 year old boyfriend. Her parents and the courts force her to have an abortion (link in Italian). A couple (one 16 the other 17) exchange sexual images of themselves to each other. They are charged and convicted of child pornography (from
erudito. In good ol Denver, a 13 year old girl has been charged as both offender and victim for having sex with her 12 year old boyfriend.
no subject
The Italian one is more surprising (given Catholicism) and more interesting. Should a 13 year old be allowed to have a child? If so, who pays?
no subject
Well have it, yes, I think she should be allowed to (especially given her rather strong views on the matter).
Keep it depends on her cognitive ability.
If so, who pays?
Even in the worse case scenario I really don't think a single mothers penion would be that much of a problem on the budget. The Italians could save the money from withdrawing from NATO for starters...
no subject
no subject
Most taxpayers don't want to pay for children whose parents can't look after them?!?!
What, close down the orphanages or something?
no subject
Welfare systems are designed as a safety net for those who have unavoidable misfortune, not for those who feel like making bad choices and inflicting the financial result of that on the rest of the community. Nobody's saying the safety net should be closed down, just that people shouldn't be allowed to voluntarily use it as an alternative to making sensible life choices.
no subject
I'm still not sure where you stand on this. In an Australian context, are you saying the Parenting Payment should be abolished? And if not, under what circumstances should it remain? Are you saying that abortion should be compulsory if the parents cannot show sufficient financial backing to bring up a child? If not, what is your stance?
no subject
Anyhow, PP goes beyond just a form of social security. The government wants to encourage people to make babies, so it's a form of social engineering too, which takes it into another realm.
As to the second question, that's an interesting one. Ideally, I think it's a good idea. Minimising opportunities for people to intentionally inflict their own financial mismanagement upon the rest of the community is a good idea. Realistically, it's not going to happen, especially with the current religious wankers in power.
no subject
Apart from the fact I'm trying to ascertain what sort of conditional limitations you're suggesting.
Minimising opportunities for people to intentionally inflict their own financial mismanagement upon the rest of the community is a good idea.
True, but there are degrees. One can only predict in a generalised sense what future financial ability is going to be; further one has to compare the proposal of compulsory abortions with the desire for adoption.
Thus I do not think it is a good idea to force a person to have an abortion based on perceptions of their capacity to raise a child.
Realistically, it's not going to happen, especially with the current religious wankers in power.
One does not have to be a "religious wanker" to respect the right of a person to control their own body.
no subject
The "right of a person to control their own body" is an over-simplification and mis-characterisation of the issue. I believe we should have the right of absolute control over our own destinies and our own bodies so long, as with all rights, we do not infringe on the rights of others.
The results of the right to do anything you want to your own body might cause great cost to the community. At that point, we have three choices:
A) Allow such behaviour and allow the person access to communal resources no matter what.
B) Allow such behaviour and deny the person communal resources to deal with the results.
C) Try to prevent or alter the situation.
Going with A sets the system up to be rorted. (eg. Underage girls having babies to get handouts from the government.) B is unworkable in this particular area, since the victim is the child, not the one who caused the situation. Note that if we are talking about bringing up children, C still contains a number of options, including forced adoption.
Part of having rights is taking responsibility for ones actions, not just sitting back and doing whatever the hell you please and making other people pay for it.
no subject
Going with A sets the system up to be rorted. (eg. Underage girls having babies to get handouts from the government
Seriously, do you think this is a potential problem?
no subject
The question in such matters generally amounts to "at what point does it matter?" All systems will be rorted, but there's a point below which it's not worthwhile, socially and/or economically, trying to circumvent that. I've seen figures which say that 3% of those on PP are teenagers. If those who receive PP as teenagers get it for an average of 4 years as teenagers and then 11 years after, that implies that about 12% if PP recipients started as teenagers. I've not seen any reliable sources of data on the issue of intent. The CIS has its opinion and others disagree.
no subject
Well certainly the Federal government's "Baby Bonus" is possibility the worst thought out of all parenting/welfare payments.
I am certainly not worried if 12% of PP recipients start off as teenagers; the late teens to early twenties are, biologically speaking for women in the post-industrial societies, the best time to have a child - except the social circumstances also mean that said women are having children in their thirties.
no subject
You can be too narrowly rational on some points. Personally I think that no 13 year old should be allowed to destroy her life prospects at such an age - cognitive ability or not. She certainly lacks enough experience to be a halfway decent mother, except in a more tribal society in which child mothers would not be expected to handle the major burden by themselves. Which is why grandparents must be allowed to have a say in the matter.
(I'm talking about the Italian case, not the stupid Florida and Utah criminal codes.)
no subject
You can be too narrowly rational on some points.
;-)
Personally I think that no 13 year old should be allowed to destroy her life prospects at such an age - cognitive ability or not.
Cognitive ability is the basic requirement; obvious the concrete questions of financing, social circumstances and so forth are requisite. Whilst it is true that teenaged parents usually face insurmountable difficulties, I hardly think that justifies compulsory abortion either; which is quite literally sending her insane.
There are other options; such as letting her give birth to the child but it remaining primarily in foster or other care until she has the ability to take up the parenting role.
This is an unusual case of course, usually the issue is access to choose an abortion. However the attitudes motivating the judge and parents in this particular case seem to be those of forty-plus years ago.
no subject
Besides which, we can't see all ends. If she raises it, she will still be only 31 when her child leaves home. If she studies at home whilst raising her child, she can then embark on a career without being held back by her child. Should make her eminently more marketable to her prospective employers. :)
As to her lacking experience? Who knows? She's decided to keep the baby - which sounds like she's fully cogniscent of what she's done and she's willing to shoulder the responsiblity that comes with her right to have sex. That sounds like an adult choice.
Given that everyone is allowed to breed irrespective of their morals or ethics or social class or criminal record, her lack of experience doesn't even matter much, eh? Where does anyone get the experience to raise kids? She won't get it by virtue of being five years older. She *might* get it by living in a family with lots of siblings and having to care for her baby brother whilst her mother goes back to her day job. So maybe the lower classes have more experience in such things than the middle or upper classes...:)
The fact is that people should have a licence to breed. It would be relatively simple to implement (but a bugger to enforce). You'd need a one year course at TAFE to qualify. I mean, hey, we need a licence to have a dog, after all. And they take less care than raising a human. But its an issue that I doubt we'll ever see any politicians confronting in this wonderful country.
no subject
Nor is it surprising that you'd use this as a measurement of fact. Perhaps someone here is allowing their emotions surpass their rationale. Gee it sure is hard for me to tell who.
Oh wait. Nope. I can't back that up.
As a non politically aligned independent, who is also pretty militantly atheist I'd have to say you give people like me a bad name by acting just like the people you hate.
no subject
no subject