Melanie Phillips has written a piece for Daily Mail on-line concerning the baby born of 15-year-old mother by a 13-year-old father: (click on title for link).
As usual Melanie enters the moral maze with great confidence and an aerial diagram of the layout. This time I’m not necessarily lock-stepping her all the way, as there may be more than one way through it.
Moreover, there is an elephant wandering around in this one, which everyone seems to be ignoring. How are they going to prevent this young 'couple' from continuing their illegal sexual relationship when it has already borne fruit, so to speak? Denying ‘parents’ conjugal rights that might cement a relationship that would benefit the baby in later years could be deleterious - a tricky problem for both familes, the social services and the police, I would have thought. The difficulties are obvious, but the solutions are not easily formulated. Perhaps there may have to be blind eyes turned here to allow evolution to proceed in the least worst of all possibilities. Innocence is something we should do all we can to protect in children, but once lost it cannot be restored or repaired, but it can be replaced by support, education and encouragement towards parental responsibility and the natural affection involved fostered in all possible ways.
Sadly, there are thousands of couplings of individuals whose maturity is probably even less developed than that of these two children, but whose legal right to breed is inviolate merely because of the arbitrary parameter of age alone and they have ‘rights’. Whether the result is any better for society than this sad little story is debatable.
In the counter culture ethos (or rather chaos) that has engulfed us, ostracism, peer group pressures, judgemental attitudes and other social mores that were once natural regulators (along with civil and religious laws) are now infra dig - in some cases illegal. It follows that an increase in feral children, promiscuous and/or perverted sexual behaviour, breeding patterns and all the consequences that issue forth are inevitable. Add to that the all-pervasive and baleful influences of television and its intrusion into childhood, through lack of any real regulation or even parental supervision, and it is perhaps inevitable that things will have to get worse before, or rather if, they are to get better. Humanity is too clever by half and too stupid by a country mile to better its lot on this planet. There’s the paradox! And most of us shrank from stamping our feet harder and resisting the great army of the deluded and depraved culture warriors when they started their long march.
At least in this particular case, the little family involved emerges from the same nation, race, social status; the child is the issue of a heterosexual coupling with no test tubes involved and if they are given the privacy and support they need, it could turn out to be a happy family in 5 – 10 years, who knows? Calm down dear, it’s only nature taking its course; admittedly, on this occasion, a little prematurely, but there is a possibility of a good result, at least. Just give Old Father Time a chance to help out. In the meantime someone has to decide whether this prematurely aged young man is entitled to his regular ration of oats and in due course the young lady too, to balance the more onerous elements of parenthood as it did for most of us, I guess. I’m just glad I don’t have to decide on that issue.
Ahhh. There’s the exit to this maze. I’m outa here before I get trampled to death. By Melanie that is, not the elephant!
A Scott-free, piss-poor substitute for The Daily Ablution
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)



14 comments:
It has often struck me, at weddings, that the maturity of the couple standing front and centre is only part of the equation - whether measured in years or attitude.
In my experience, in a Christian church wedding and even more in a Hindu religious marriage ceremony, there is a huge element of making a commitment in front of those who have a close mutual interest in the success of the endeavour.
There are all kinds of taboo, ceremony and custom which societies have built up to prevent 13- and 15-year olds from following through, as it were, on their reproductive capabilities - or at least to mitigate the potential harm should they do so.
The problem is, the harm which results from dismantling those mechanisms seems so remote from the act of dismantling, that it's all too easy for anyone who rails against it to be written off as a reactionary old fart.
" ...the harm which results from dismantling those mechanisms seems so remote from the act of dismantling ..."
And the dismantlers will never own up to being the cause of the 'results', because there are always more recent contributary circumstances and handy contemporary scapegoats to blame. Thus is false history recorded.
It is reported today that Alfie's DNA is being tested to ascertain that he is indeed the progenitor of the bonny baby. A dark development. If not he, who? There is always a question of proximity in these cases. What a mess!
It would now appear that the chances of any youth in Southern England being this child's progenitor are somewhat higher than those of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning.
And finally a judge has forbidden further publicity. I am not sure how it has been legal at any stage of these sordid proceedings for any newspaper to identify the two children involved,as on the face of it each has been subject to illegal sexual assault.Still, what does that matter to your soaraway Sun? Quaere? Can one soar whilst in the gutter?
Mark Steyn weighs in:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjZmOTcwODUzOTBmMWIyODhmYzU0OWU5MDk3NGYzNzg=
Please note that I filched the obvious song title as a caption for my post before he did for his. Didn't think I'd ever beat Mark to a headline :-)
Why has Bloody Scott become a sort of fortnightly rag,in which Frank P,Paul ilc and occasionally, furriskey, emerge once in a while, comment on some matter of current interest, and then withdraw into the woodwork?
Time was when it was a vibrant (if piss poor)substitute for the now defunct Daily Ablution (whatever happened to Scott Burgess, by the way?), with daily, or almost daily, posts by these redoubtable bloggers, usually followed by a long string of comments from visiting trolls, that sometimes ran on for several days.
What happened?
Quite simple Cecil: the substitute can never replace the original.
Moreover, we don't 'withdraw into the woodwork', we post and wait for comments. If you, and other ex-Ablutionists choose not to comment, that your prerogative. Incidentally we hear on the grapevine that Scott is okay and if you wish to refer to the now-defunct TDA for any reason, it does exist in the subterranean labyrinths of the cyberworld and can be accessed at:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://dailyablution.blogs.com
where Scott's prescience (and that of some of the commentariat) can now be appreciated with hindsight.
I have definitely withdrawn into the woodwork.
I am contemplating a horrible revenge on G Brown for the destruction of my pension and sundry other insults and I do not intend to emerge from the timber until I have finalised the plot.
furriskey
Count me in; I'll carry the noose.
Way ahead of you fellows...
For some months now, I have been covertly undermining the credibility of the current administration using a number of techniques pioneered by the CIA, viz.:
- I have introduced a substance into Captain Darling's boot-polish which has turned his hair white and his eyebrows black, increasing still further his resemblance to a Mysteron;
- whenever possible, I have directed ultra-low frequency sound at Boredom Brown, causing his face to melt perceptibly;
- I have cunningly published praise of these two, as well as minions like Straw, Hoon, Smith and Jowell - thus encouraging them to extend their policy efforts still further beyond the rational.
I think you will agree, the result of this subterfuge has been to make them look like utter cocks.
Fight on, brothers, fight on...
Well done cuirthe - I thought you may have had a hand in it; as you have been maintaining radio silence for some time I guessed you were on a secret mission. Glad you were able to break cover to let us know of you success - the results plain for all to see.
You didn't come across Scott Burgess in your travels did you?
Afraid not... though I'm not sure I would recognise him without his devil's horns and googly glasses, having only encountered his blog persona.
Yes, apologies for the radio silence - my lengthy undercover mission was only made possible by the fact that I lost my day job in a round of cutbacks, so life has been more than usually interesting.
Not a great time to be launching one's self-employed career, but then again, if it will fly in this climate, think what the future could hold ;^)
Well, at least the question posed by the title of this post has now, at length, been answered. What it's about, Alfie, is circulation figures.
Now, I'm certainly not one to suggest that The Sun should have access to anyone's DNA profile, let alone that of an alleged 12-year-old father... but in the absence of proof of parenthood, what the juvenile fuck were they doing running it as a fron-tpage story?
No doubt they will claim "public interest", making the customary reptilian argument that 'anything of interest to the public is in the public interest'.
Yesterday, incidentally, saw the start of the roll-out of the "ContactPoint" database, on which young Alfie, his g/f, her lover *and* their offspring will presumably all be enrolled in due course. Putting all their personal data in one place will save the Sun's editors even more effort. What an auspicious start.
My apologies for the appallingly tasteless and unfounded slur in the previous comment. What I meant to say was:
"Now that ContactPoint is going live, the Sun's editors will only have to go to one place to get their facts wrong".
Post a Comment