I do! 21, same as drinking. I mean really, if you're not responsible yet to control yourself with alcohol (as far as the law sees it) then why are you mature enough to raise another human life? Doesn't make ANY sense to me!
please don't go on about HOW they would control my new theory on "underage mothers", we could argue forever.
Please just say your oppinion on trying to set an age limit. And why you think someone is responsible enough to raise a kid and not have a beer. (don't bring up military soldiers can die for their country and not drink. Unlike young mothers, we get training to do our jobs and to be responsible)
2006-11-17
09:10:57
·
13 answers
·
asked by
ur a Dee Dee Dee
5
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
.
some people will say 18, but really, you're still a TEEN, which in my mind teen = kid
kids can't drink
2006-11-17
09:14:44 ·
update #1
I agree 100%
although the age thing might not be the key. The test idea is great! But same with drinking, who really came up with 21? why is it that at being 20 yrs 11months and 28 days you are not ready to drink, but at 21 years it's ok?
but just like many things, they are good in theory or consept. and usually never happen, or if they try to instill it, they never work as planned
2006-11-17 13:41:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Sgt Know It All 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I agree that there is an age that is just too young. But I can't say a specific age, because people mature at different rates. I know a lot of women who became pregnant really young, but having to be responsible for another life really taught them a lot and they wound up being very responsible and great parents. On the flip side, I know people who waited until they were out of college to start a family and their kids barely know them because their always at work. The babysitter and the school is raising their kids and they don't even care.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I think generally a woman should be out of high school - at least, before starting a family, but for those who get pregnant before then, they shouldn't be forced to either get an abortion or give the child up for adoption. It's a gray area that I'm glad the government hasn't weighed in on yet.
2006-11-17 17:21:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by Tonya in TX - Duck 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
i absolutely agree, in Australia we get given $4000 dollars upon the birth of every child, tax free, no questions asked, no matter how old you are. Since this came about we have had so many 13-14-15 year old girls having babies because well can you imagine how $4000 looks to you at that age. Not only that you don't have to work, you get a pension to look after your children, even if you have a partner who earns a good wage,on top of this they'll give you $600 per child once a year/every year tax free no questions asked, this is fabulous for me and my husband as we have 4 children and its great to be able to raise them comfortably but on the downside it encourages teen pregnancy which is a big problem here
2006-11-17 17:18:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by NUNYA 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes, I think you should have to be at a point where you can take care of the child, are married, have a steady source of income, are settled enough to be able to spend quality time with the child, and are mentally stable and grown up enough to have another life dependent upon you. Whatever age that is. (It is different for every person.)
As far as being 18, my Mom got married at 18 had three kids soon after and they are still together. They have been married 20 yrs. now and are financially stable.
2006-11-17 17:24:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Kaity 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The difficulty in making such a law for an age (whether 18, or 21 or whatever) is how would you enforce it? Mandatory plan B pills? Mandatory tube ties?
While in theory it may be a good idea, you step into some really hairy areas trying to figure out how to make it work. I think I would vote against it if it ever hit the polls.
2006-11-17 17:17:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by daisyk 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
you have a great point.. however if you say you can have a kid at the same age you start drinking.. what about other places like Canada (where we can drink at 18).. or Holland (where they can drink at 14.. or earlyer)...
I believe that you have to be old enough/responsible enough to take care of yourself.. i personally think you should be over 20 but i know some people who have had kids at 16 and there children turned out great..... it depends on the person
2006-11-17 17:20:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by fallingasteriod 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
That is just silly. The mother of God had Jesus at the age of 15. Her mother had her at 63.
Age doesn't matter, but God's plan does!
Many over 21 cannot control alcohol...being older doesn't mean responsibility. I know many who are very young, and are very mature.
2006-11-17 17:19:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by Felicitas 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I was 20 when i had my first kid and i am a very responsible mom with three kids now and a wonderful husband, this is a free world, that means people are free to make their own mistakes or choices.
2006-11-17 17:45:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by daisy322_98 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the age should be at least 18, but then it also depends on the maturity and responsibility level of the person.
2006-11-17 17:13:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by layla 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
yeah i think 25 isa good age to have ids i had my little girl at 17 i wish i had waited but wouldnt change her for the world. i think drinking should be 21
2006-11-17 17:15:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by me_@yahoo 1
·
1⤊
0⤋