Mississippi law requires involuntary DNA testing for teen moms (California)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And this bill is not applying to married underage mothers - only those who are under the age of 16 and will not name the father. I am not sure what point you're trying to make. Either way, Mississippi has a huge problem with very young girls getting impregnated by much older men. They're not trying to convict teenage sex here, they're trying to stop statutory rape of very young girls.
And this bill is not applying to married underage mothers - only those who are under the age of 16 and will not name the father. I am not sure what point you're trying to make. Either way, Mississippi has a huge problem with very young girls getting impregnated by much older men. They're not trying to convict teenage sex here, they're trying to stop statutory rape of very young girls.
My criminal law teacher in college sagely noted: "The only way to get rid of [statutory rape] is to have everyone's birthdate tattooed between their thighs."
Regardless of what the MS legislature is thinking, malamute made some seriously off-the-wall comments that went way beyond that and needed to be addressed on their own terms.
My criminal law teacher in college sagely noted: "The only way to get rid of [statutory rape] is to have everyone's birthdate tattooed between their thighs."
Regardless of what the MS legislature is thinking, malamute made some seriously off-the-wall comments that went way beyond that and needed to be addressed on their own terms.
I am not sure if this law will have any impact but it's good to see them at least trying to be proactive about the problem vice simply sticking their head in the sand. Unfortunately, in the past, MS has taken the ostrich approach and are now trying to undo the serious damage they've already caused with that type of policy. They have a long way to go on several fronts to fix so many of their problems.
I didn't catch those other poster's comments so I would have to look back and see what that entailed.
For some of the other posters' criticism on calling this hypocrisy for conservatives to favor this and calling it big gov't and the like - I think they are confusing being conservative with being libertarian. Conservatives favor a small central gov't and returning power to the local gov't (state); Libertarians are more in favor of small gov't in all aspects of gov't.
That is disgusting to refer to the birth of a child as "crotch fruit" - Never hear of such a hateful term. As for young fathers- If they do not step up to the plate and at least acknowledge there own children- It is a good idea to out these little goofs. Support of the child should not be made the key factor..that can come later...but a child needs a father....It is better that the child have a "dead beat" father than none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
I believe that you do forfeit some rights when living off of the state.
Want to keep your privacy? Keep your legs together, unless you can provide for yourself and your child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J
If you are making crotch fruit with an underage girl, then there's a good chance you will end up in the system sooner or later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J
Should I have used **** trophy instead?
Notice how righties have this love affair with charming local colloquialisms? I wish I could count how many times I've seen 'keep your legs together' on this debate forum.
I am not sure if this law will have any impact but it's good to see them at least trying to be proactive about the problem vice simply sticking their head in the sand. Unfortunately, in the past, MS has taken the ostrich approach and are now trying to undo the serious damage they've already caused with that type of policy. They have a long way to go on several fronts to fix so many of their problems.
The solution to their problem in this case (supposing it is a major problem, which I'm not at all sure about) is comprehensive, rational sex education. That doesn't sell in the Bible Belt, so "let's lock more people up" is the default choice.
Quote:
For some of the other posters' criticism on calling this hypocrisy for conservatives to favor this and calling it big gov't and the like - I think they are confusing being conservative with being libertarian. Conservatives favor a small central gov't and returning power to the local gov't (state); Libertarians are more in favor of small gov't in all aspects of gov't.
Largely true, but it's the conservatives who like to deliberately conflate the two positions in order to get independents to swallow their Bible-beating agenda.
Haha. You honestly think that these men want to be in the child's life? They don't! Every mother that has a birth and doesn't list the father has a damn good reason for doing so. These children still run the same chance of being on government aid because chances are the father will be a deadbeat. Only in your dream world, he will be a deadbeat and the children will be exposed to him.
Yeah sure, you assume EVERYONE comes from the same negative trip you came from ?
BTW you can protest all you want I'm sure your 1 vote will really mean something LOL !!!
but if they impregnated a teenage girl and they are grown men they need to be in prison. they are pedophiles.
Pedophilia is the attraction to pre-teens
Being attracted to 17 year olds may be creepy, but it's not pedophilia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.