10 Year-Old Gives Birth in Southern Spain

Aren't you strongly against pre-marital sex? A girl is not physically (nor emotionally) ready to have sex at that age, nor is she ready to deliver a child.

 

Oh, oops, that was a wording error on my part. It was going to be either:
I also consider it wrong to lose your virginity at such a young age.
Or:
I also consider losing your virginity at such a young age to be a bad thing.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll go edit now.

 

Still, it's two human lives that hung in the balance. He may be against pre-marital sex but that doesn't mean that it won't happen. This is the real world we're living in, and sometimes we have to embrace it whether we like it or not. He's simply saying that even though the cirucmstances were horrible, it's still a good thing that this person didn't die. And I think he may have worded it wrong, the quote that you took from keyblade Spirit.

Also, for some reason, this is reminding me of Brave New World. 0.0

 

I don't know why, but not that I'm saying this is right or anything, but I'm not really freaking out about it. I'm normally very sensitive when it comes to this kind of topic but...First of all, it was consensual...He's a minor too (let's assume he's around her age because otherwise I don't think they'd hesitate with pressing some kind of charges)...And there isn't anything we can do now that the deed is done.

So I don't get what the big deal is. :| She lived, the baby is alright and can be given away to a family more deserving, and there was no rape involved.

No, it's not right, and obviously the parents are to blame if these kids had this kind of time together and actually DID IT.

but it's not the saddest/sickest story I've heard and I'm not too shaken by it. ​

 

Precisely. To put my view short and sweet:
10 year old having sex=Wrong
Pregnant 10 year old=Wrong
Father of pregnant 10 year old's baby running away from the issue= Wrong
Pregnant 10 year old's family severely underreacting to the situation= Wrong
Pregnant 10 year old surviving childbirth=REALLY FLIPPING GOOD
New life in the world=ALSO REALLY FLIPPING GOOD

@ℳαяια Uѕнιяσмιуα: I'm glad at least one person agrees with me.

 

Maybe it's because I've been studying too much rhetoric recently, but I'm kind of on the same page as ℳαяια Uѕнιяσмιуα. Kind of. Is this something I want replicated? No. But I fail to see what the freak out here is. Everyone seems to think that being pregnant at that age is dangerous. Maybe I missed something in bio/sex ed but I was always taught that a woman can't have her period until she is capable of having a child (barring drugs and such). The biggest risk I'm seeing is that the womb can't have grown to full size yet which would make it painful.

I have religious reasons for saying that is a bad idea (I'm 18 and still holding my first kiss). But barring that, especially in a world where sex in teenage years is very common, I'm not sure where the line is drawn that would make 16 perfectly fine to many people but 10 completely disgusting...

 

Being pregnant at the age of sixteen isn't the greatest thing in the world either. It's not "perfectly fine" in the least. But at age 16, a girl's body is usually much more developed than that of a ten year old. A mere child who can barely be considered a "preteen". Just because she has her period doesn't mean her body is fully capable of nurturing a baby. It means she is ovulating, and that's pretty much it. Pregnancy at age 16, although not a pleasant ideology either, unfortunately happens more and more these days, and is not such a startling find.

 

If I bring it up and ask if teenage pregnancy is good or bad many people will say bad, yes. But the fact remains that nobody thinks twice about it in real life. At my highschool there were three pregnant students. I however only know this because I was friends with the nurse and it came up once (No names for privacy reasons, but he could give stats as much as he liked). There was nobody talking about it, not even in gossip. It's the difference between public appearence and actual opinion. Many people would like to say they cared, but in truth don't.

And the ovulations only start once the girl reaches a certain body weight, has a certain hormonal balance, etc. Like I said, it may hurt more, and it may be more taxing than most pregnancies, but she'll be fine. Caring for the baby is a bit different, but it isn't hard to have a mother that is older help her, or to just use baby formula in today's society. I have no concerns regarding the safety of the mother or child that I wouldn't have with any other pregnancy.

 

My jaw actually dropped when I read the title. I barely knew about sex at that age, and I still thought boys were gross (okay, partly it was because the guys in my class were bullying me, but still...).

For some reason, this reminds me a bit of the musical Spring Awakening. The main female character in it is convinced by the male lead to have sex, without her actually knowing what it meant, and then getting pregnant. I'm wondering if that could've been the case here too, although judging by the parents reaction, it seems a bit unlikely...

 

How do you react over something like this? is it even possible to have sex at that age properlly.... well I guess it obviously is for the fact a baby was created........ I just don't know how to react....

 

I agree with Luna, when you're ovulating, it doesn't mean you can have a kid. People who are well over fifty are still ovulating and does that mean they can support a baby through nine months? No, it means your body is just starting or is in, puberty/adulthood before you stop.

I'm not going to trot through the minefield what Keyblade spirit posted for many reasons. But I strongly oppose what he says completely. That's all I'm going to say about it. It is wrong and cruel on many levels for a girl to do this. The parents shouldn't have the kid nor the baby in their lives. When I was ten, I wasn't interested in boys at all. I knew about sex because my mom was a strong believer in telling kids what they should know if they ask if not age appropriate.

 

Ow.
For one, I blame the childs parents.
They could have stopped it. They put their daughter in danger. And she survived? I call that a miracle. And it's all fine now?! *headdesk* They could have stopped her having the kid, and yet they didn't. Didn't they notice the bump from her belly?!
Is the baby OK? I hope it is.....
I'm thirteen. I'm actually kinda scared by this, I don't want it to happen to me. It's just cruel and disturbing. (No offence)

And for another matter..they "broke up"? After all that's happened? Running away is not the answer. 0_0

I mean, DAMN. I hope the kid and the parent is OK.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking. Yeah, it's unnerving that kids at that age did that and this was the result. Yeah, their parents should have stopped and they deserve a lot of the blame and sex ed definitely should be taught to younger kids. But that young? I don't know about that.

The baby and the girl are both alright, no one was raped, no one died. She might have some body complications later in life, but right now, she's fine.
Not every child is breastfed, either. It's good for them, but not a necessity.

A girl having sex at that age? Yeah, utterly disgusting and something is definitely wrong there.
The girl and baby being healthy in the end? Reason for rejoice. Who would rather they died?

Despite the awkward conversations they'll have later in life (if they keep it) about difference in age (and that's their business), I don't see anything wrong with it besides the fact that two young kids had sex. That one pair of kids does not speak for the entire generation. We all know kids are having sex much younger these days (and comparing it to when you were a kid is redundant. Times change. Look at what your parents did when they were your age), but this is probably one of the rarer cases where ten years old are doing the nasty. And lol@anyone who makes a big deal that they "broke up." Parents or not, they're ten. They have no idea what about their situation, especially the commitment of a relationship.

If anything, I find it medically fascinating that the girl survived and she and the infant are in good shape.

 

@Sara: I don't think KS was saying that what happened was right to begin with. You disagree that it's a good thing she survived childbirth and that a new life came into the world, meaning, the baby survived as well?

@The thread
On another note, everyone is flipping out about how she was just ten years old. The youngest person recorded to have a child was five years old, I believe.

Also, this is 2010. Five years old run around calling people cunt-faces and ******s; innocence is dying out because parents are becoming more and more irresponsible. On several occasions, whether you WANT to believe it or not, young children know what sex is. Due to being so young and a not-so-good upbringing, young children very often experiment with sex. A great deal of children under the age of ten masturbate, because it feels good. Others who are younger than we'd like to believe have also preformed sexual acts out of curiosity/stupidity, or because the media has taught them that it's normal.

My two-year-old little brother had a girlfriend at pre-school. No, it wasn’t because my parents were sickos, or because he was one himself, he had learned what that was at school. Luckily for him, he had a good family who was able to tell him that he was much to young for that sort of thing and was able to teach him a little something about peer pressure and such. Children who are less fortunate to be guided in this kind of way are not sickos or heartless *******s. They’re obviously very lost and confused.

Judging them with no sense or general compassion is not something that benefits this kind of situation…at all. They’re children. It was wrong, it was stupid, but the parents are the ones to blame for not creating a better environment for these children. It the parents job to try to retain that innocence, or at least plant some seeds of common sense and morals. No one is just BORN knowing everything, or knowing right from wrong. If we were born into a society that believed women should be impregnated at age 10, then left with a child, then that’s what would be normal to us. That’s what would be right, and no one would be freaking out. We were taught that this kind of this is morally wrong, which is the only reason we’re sticking to our convictions about it. But in all honesty, if they weren’t taught the same way or don’t’ have the same foundation that most of us do, then that’s something to blame on the parents—role models, teachers, and general enviroment these children were born into. Not call the children sickos. :|

​

 

I meant his views on abortion and other points. We had a two hour long fight about it, and I won't raise to the bait to another one. Nor the other points he posted. And I still stand on my point that the parents, even if happy with a new child, shouldn't subject their child to the torture of labor. Labor is pure and utter agony, and no child should suffer through it. If you want to twist my words, go ahead. I don't see you criticizing anyone else who agrees with me.

My point of view is my own, and I'm sticking to my guns about it. I also won't lose my temper because some other members who want to turn this into an argument or see their Point of View. To add onto this, lets look long term, for an example, I'll take 9/11, you survive the fall of the WTC, great, everyone's happy, you have a job, wonderful. Two years later, you find out you have lung cancer from the effects and die from it causing more grief and debt to your family.

There's always the long-term consequences to each side, I could cross the street today and get hit by a bus, did I know the consequences? No, I didn't. But if I jumped off a bridge into shallow water, I know, even if I survive, I could end up paralyzed for life. The doctor's, parents and the child at least expected what would happen long-term if the child had the baby, the same I would know the consequences of jumping off that bridge.

Either way, it's too massive a risk even if short-term, you get that rush of jumping, or that joy of having a child. No matter what age you're at, and yes, kids can "date" at two, are they going to have sex at two, five and so on? No, they won't at least for a while. Are they going to most likely have children at two five and so on? No, at least for a while. Does it make them right to make them go through anything that happens if they do end up with consequences? No, it doesn't.

 

Actually, only the first part was directed at you. Sorry, that could have been signified clearer. The entire mini-rant was just in general, but the first two sentences were the only ones directed at you to begin with. I also agree that no child should have to go through childbirth, I'm only saying that this could have been...worse. My only point directed at you was that I'm personally thankful that everyone survived the situation. Thank you for clearing your own point up.

Also, I don't see debate as an argument. v:​

 

I typed more about it, by the way. I thought I should clear some up. As for 9/11, I know a lot of people survived without consequences. That's wonderful, I'm thrilled for them. Maybe the child will be okay, the baby too, but there's risk and gain. I don't think the risk is worth it, the same as posted before of jumping off the bridge. I can swim away from a jump without anything wrong, I could even more likely in a very high chance end up with a broken neck, that makes the risk higher than the gain.

And you probably didn't see that debate/slash argument with me and Spirit. It was pretty late at night. lol... I don't try to make it into an argument, and I avoid it when I can. :)

 

But you DON'T KNOW if they made her have the baby. For all you know they sat down with her and told her the options and in the end she decided FOR HERSELF to have the baby. Or maybe the parents wanted her to get the abortion, she refused, and now they're trying to make the best of it. Or maybe you're right and they did make her have the baby. There are not enough details at the moment to make assumptions like this. If she did decide for herself to have the baby, what then? According to prochoice morality, isn't it her choice to decide whether or not she goes through that agony? Or do you have a double standard saying that it's only your choice and your body after X age?

And lol, I posted it in the Debate Corner so people wouldn't be afraid to argue. I saw it as a very good debate. But I digress.

 

If I was jumping off the bridge, and my parents could stop me at any time, they would. Until I was 18, I would have still have no say if they decide to stop me mid-jump. I'd be pissed at them, yes, but until I'm an adult, that doesn't give me a right to contradict what they say. At ten, I would sure as hell they'd stop me from jumping off the bridge into shallow water, or stop me at mid-jump. If a doctor stopped me from jumping off a bridge in mid-air, as an adult, kid or 2 month old baby, it's his right to do so if he thinks it will kill me and medically there would be long time consequences. I'd be pissed again, but that's his choice.

Whoever decided that the 10 year old should have the baby, whether or not it be her parents, the child, or the doctor, for whatever reason, it was the wrong thing to do. You can stop a child birth, from the above options, any three could have stopped it and they didn't. But they decided to carry it through and that is wrong. Even if the child, at ten, decided to have it, the parent should have overruled it. If the parents wanted her to have it, and the doctor saw it as a danger to the child's life, he should have done something to stop it. Call me wrong, but I think they should have stopped it.

 

Relating the ten-year old's pregnancy to jumping off a bridge is a flawed argument.
In the latter case, there is very little chance of you surviving. In the former, there usually isn't a large chance of surviving either, but the fact that the baby is in good health makes me think the doctors must have known, or at least had reason to believe, that the girl and baby would both survive and the physical consequence
was slim. Yes, there might be physical consequences later on, but we don't know that or how bad they will be. All we know is that the mother and baby are "in good health." Nowhere does it say that any doctor saw any danger to the child.