Besides, if you go back, you mentioned the last 100 years.
Yeah, I went back, and I didn't say that.
By 1880, the first date chosen, many western nations had established an age of consent for the first time, typically of 12 or 13 years.
Yes, many western
nations.
And I wrote of individual
states of the United States of America.
American ages of consent were lower than typical elsewhere in the western world.
Only one State cited as having a single digit age of consent/
Fair enough. I meant "as low as", but you're right, the way I worded it didn't convey that.
Marriage as a child is a pretty moldy concept, and then not something conducted with the wholehearted approval of the Church, and was usually done to cement treaties. Royalty and Nobility far more than the commoners, and a very old concept.
Yes. If I recall correctly, the papal words on the subject referred to it being allowable as low as 7 "if necessary" or something like that. But it was in Canon Law, put in during Medieval times.
Actually, conservatives would prefer the teen not get pregnant out of wedlock in the first place.
I'm sure conservatives would prefer not having war, too, but that doesn't make them pacifists. Sometimes events occur different from the preferred path, and we can make judgments on what is best from that point in time.
It used to be, conservatives would prefer a good marriage.
Not even impending bastardy can justify the shackles of a bad marriage conducted "for the children".
Which is it: Are you implying all marriages are bad, or that all mid-teen marriages should be banned because some might be bad? Either way, I think it's wrong.
Now, now, TBR is a website, code in a machine and has no feeling in and of itself.
A synecdochal allusion, to be sure, but every commenter to that point had appeared to express that opinion, so I think it was a justifiable rhetorical hyperbole.
I doubt it would be fair to say that even the people who post here support the ordinary practice of the conception and rearing of children outside of the gentle penumbra of a good home, a father and mother who will care for and love the children, wrapped in the security of a good marriage, although most would find a even single parent who cares for their child preferable to abortion.
Agreed.
Though not relevant to the point.
The question isn't what is preferred in an ideal world, but what about the imperfect case.
and my point stands that in the past, most people would have preferred a pregnant teen mother get married, and those who support this proposed legislation would ban that.
