Previous Continued

HGL's F.B. writings : 1) Marital Age and Teen Abortions ; 2) Previous Continued ; Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : 3) Continuing with BG, trying to bring in history, getting a few dialogues on moral issues.

One subthread:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is what I meant by saying that I have paid a great price in my life for affirming the right of teens to marry, which is a truly pro-life statement.

You were just giving a pro-abortion argument, while saying it is immoral of me to think it "okay for a CHILD to have a baby".

Well, if it isn't ok, why object to those doing sth about it?

But if you are correct to so object, and you are, why is it not ok for a not indeed child but teen to have children and husband or wife?

Amanda Lewin

Hans-Georg, no you are not understanding my position here. Of course if a child of 13, and as mother of 6, I can assure you a 13 yr old IS a child, became pregnant I would never advocate abortion as that is the deliberate murder of a baby. I would and have support the girl to have her baby and love and care for him/her. That is NOT the issue here. You are placing yourself in a very precarious position openly claiming you support children as young as 13 becoming mothers/marrying.

When a 13 yr old falls pregnant it is always because contraception failed or they were having sex and not considering the consequences, not because they wanted a baby.

BG

Hans you're talking such garbage. The average age of marriage has been fairly much the same through the centuries. Of course in some places because of factors like land availability, disease- and mortality rate (30 was fairly normal age of death before 19th century) as well as crucially EDUCATION into being a mother and wife meant a younger age was possible--- but I've checked many census in my studies and overall there is little variation. eg : 1863, Women: 21.0; Men 25.8, 1900 Women: 21.9; Men: 25.9, 1950 Women: 20.3; Men: 22.8; 1975 Women: 21.1; Men: 23.5

LAG

I just - I have no words. There is a massive difference between saying that it's not ideal for a 13 year old to be pregnant, but if she becomes so, she will be supported either to care for the baby or choose adoption - between saying she is designed to be so.

you are aware that for every year a girl receives education, her children tend to live longer?! Which rather negates her bwing designed to bear them at 13...

Amanda Lewin

D. ^^

LAG

Hans-Georg Lundahl - no-one has stopped you getting a wife. I am really quite disturbed that you seem only to be interested in young girls. I have an 8 year old Brownie who has started puberty. She. Is. A. Child. End of.

LAG

Amanda Lewin - or because the choice has been taken away from them [émoticône frown]

LAG

Out of interest, would these evil men be police officers, child proetection officials and judges? Also, genuine question - what did you mean about may-September?

MR

Sounds like you're an apologist for hebephilia at the very least Hans. Disturbing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Amanda: "Of course if a child of 13, and as mother of 6, I can assure you a 13 yr old IS a child, became pregnant I would never advocate abortion as that is the deliberate murder of a baby."

Your assurance does not cut any ice with me.

I believe Mother Church, speaking through St Thomas Aquinas and through canon law through the ages, not your maternal instinct, since maternal instinct can sometimes go wrong, sometimes in direction of childifying an offspring who is "one's child" but no longer really "a child", though one's maternal love refuses to recognise that in time.

"I would and have support the girl to have her baby and love and care for him/her."

Yes, but what about the parents who, not dedicated pro-life, would not make that sacrifice?

They would say "she's too young to have a child" - and you support that - and then go on "we can't take care of it" - which you laudably don't support - and conclude for abortion.

Deliberate murder? Sure. But if a 13 year old girl "who is a child" nevertheless can be pregnant, perhaps - they could conclude - "God made a mistake and His laws against murder don't apply".

That is the problem with your position.

"You are placing yourself in a very precarious position openly claiming you support children as young as 13 becoming mothers/marrying."

No more precarious than that of Mother Church over centuries.

"When a 13 yr old falls pregnant it is always because contraception failed or they were having sex and not considering the consequences, not because they wanted a baby."

You can know that is the story that comes out, not that that is the story which is always (or even any time at all) true.

If she told workers at CPS she had wanted the baby, what do you think they would do to her?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

BG : "Hans you're talking such garbage."

After reading the rest of your post, dito, dito.

"The average age of marriage has been fairly much the same through the centuries."

Not quite true, unless you limit your scope to England post-Reformation.

Also not relevant.

Average age cannot be minimum age.

Average means "some below and some above, about same amount".

If you make average age new minimum, you raise - as in fact you know - the minimum age and therefore also the later average.

"Of course in some places because of factors like land availability, disease- and mortality rate (30 was fairly normal age of death before 19th century)"

Where do you get that stat from?

An average where child mortality is counted into the average?

"as well as crucially EDUCATION into being a mother and wife meant a younger age was possible"

Oh, you mean raising educational requirements for being a mother and wife automatically raises minimal age for being so?

Sure. But where do you get the right to raise educational requirements before allowing someone to be a mother and wife?

I am reminded of South States, ex-Slave States, who suddenly introduced educational requirements before allowing someone to vote. If they could not stop a black man from voting because he was a slave or a freedman, they could stop him from voting by raising educational requirement before allowing sn to vote.

For a less important thing like voting, that might be OK, for a more important thing like living one's life, that is so not OK.

"but I've checked many census in my studies and overall there is little variation. eg : 1863, Women: 21.0; Men 25.8, 1900 Women: 21.9; Men: 25.9, 1950 Women: 20.3; Men: 22.8; 1975 Women: 21.1; Men: 23.5"

I note that all the years you give are post-Industrial Revolution.

That is not a very impressive historical perspective.

And I am rather positive, your census studies are also limited to UK.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

LAG: "There is a massive difference between saying that it's not ideal for a 13 year old to be pregnant, but if she becomes so, she will be supported either to care for the baby or choose adoption - between saying she is designed to be so."

How do YOU see the power and wisdom of the Creator?

"you are aware that for every year a girl receives education, her children tend to live longer?! Which rather negates her bwing designed to bear them at 13..."

I think you are quoting stats where countries with lower age requirements and which are poorer also have children living less long.

It might be because the country is poorer, right?

Or, even in such countries, not just between countries overall, the stat you give holds, but that might be because the girls getting education are richer than those not getting it, if not in own property resources, at least in development support from international community.

I'd like to see you argue why it would be so on a kind of story basis, as opposed to a conclusion backed up by stats alone, I'd be interested.

"no-one has stopped you getting a wife."

OK, story line x, y, z ... I see a girl, she seems somewhat interested, next time I meet her she is very offish, end of story.

Or story line like I was seeing a girl over a few months, but last time I saw her (and people knew I was going to see her), I had intended to declare my love, but the night had been broken off very early in the morning and when I did see her I could only tell her I was tired, I did not want to blow a declaration of love. BUT, what I was hoping was to be more refreshed next time I saw her - and instead she moved to another parish.

And a few more ones like that.

"I am really quite disturbed that you seem only to be interested in young girls."

I am 47, an age peer would be:

• old maid, too old to start getting children;
• divorced and therefore not eligible
• having lived a dissolute life and gotten children with guys she was not married to
• or be a widow, with children already.

I prefer not to speculate in the death of some other man.

So, I am obviously interested in girls younger, and lots younger, than myself.

"I have an 8 year old Brownie who has started puberty. She. Is. A. Child. End of."

Story, I presume.

I have never gotten horny on an 8 year old, and the canonic age is, through centuries, 12.

If she is early on, which she seems to be, she will be suffering more than most by the raising of the canonic age and of legal age in your country beyond it.

"or because the choice has been taken away from them"

I think this girl I mentioned was told off by parents or parish priests.

"Out of interest, would these evil men be police officers, child proetection officials and judges?"

Police were directly involved in one story. They never put me to a trial in court about it.

Judges never so, thus.

The judges I had to deal with were in quite another business.

CP-officials, that is more than I know, but not beyond possibility in some cases.

In the case of the girl I mentioned in connection with my very tired night last time I saw her, she was too old for that.

"Also, genuine question - what did you mean about may-September?"

Older man, younger wife.

Perhaps the expression is US, I saw it on an American blog, where it was argued that St Joseph was a young man. Why? Because "Jews at the time looked ascance at May-September marriages". I tend to believe he was a widower and older. I never got an answer on where she had it from that Jews of the time etc.

"Sounds like you're an apologist for hebephilia at the very least Hans. Disturbing."

Why so, if it is heterosexual and intends matrimony?

Last time I checked, St Thomas was not writing that sexual acts or desires become more or less sinful according how to psychologists evaluate them. Hebephilia is not a term from Summa Theologica, it is a term from modern shrinks. What have today's Catholics to do with such, if not Apostate?

Sorry, I now saw "sounds like" etc was by MR, not LAG.

Amanda Lewin

Right Hans-Georg, you've taken up too much of my wall discussing sexual relations for minors. .The word ephebophile, comes to mind here, who as I'm sure you'll know is an adult who seeks sexual contact with a child between 13-19. Don't misuse the Holy Catholic Church's teachings as a facade for your predatory. I've allowed you to spew your delusions over my wall and now you're going to stop. And take my words off your blog too immediately. MW D

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ephebe is a MALE sexual interest for an older male.

That means it is perverted because it is homosexual.

Minors is precisely what I mean by unjust marriage legislation. 150 years ago, they would have been in age of consent in England. And in age to marry too.

I am not predatory, I am victim of calumny, like your insult, but most often behind my back.

I am loyal to the teaching, you think you can flout it because "as predatory" I am not worthy to use it. That is Pharisaic, not Catholic as a way of thinking.

I have not been spewing, and I am not deluded. You are, and the word has no clinical significance, because you are wrong about history. Or, if it has any kind of clinical significance, neither of us is, you are just heretical.

I can of course stop, like if you ban me from the wall. I will however NOT take your words off my blog.

And, as said, you are giving pro-deathers a case, whether you be aware of it or not.

Amanda Lewin

You have used my words without permission and put them on your paedo blog and you will remove them or I will get it done legally.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Try to.

My blog cannot be qualified as paedo predatory. You can of course get evil judges to do so by calumny, I presume.

Amanda Lewin

Why, has that happened before Hans? Sounds like you know something about it! Keep deluding yourself but you will remove it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I had my life ruined by calumny, in a case where I could legally have married the concerned next year by a special permission, and in which I could very well have agreed with her and her parents to see each other in safe places where temptation could nut run amuck.

It would have been a very good example to the village.

I did nothing so illegal that I was judged for it, but evil men intrigued and I was judged for another thing - defending myself against policement acting for shrinks.

I am not ashamed of what I did.

However, I am aware that blogs are deletable.

I had an MSN Group which was deleted with all the rest in 2009. And I salvaged a little for my new blogger account.

Oh, btw, if you want legal action, I am not hiding.

ESI St Martin
27 ter Bd de St Martin
FR-75003 Paris.

Amanda Lewin

How old was the minor you were attempting to marry Hans?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

14, and at 15 she could have asked for a permission from the "county" of however you translate "län".

In France, if we had been there, she could have legally married even without one at 15 (changed 2006, 7 years before gay marriage).

And in case you want to know, I was just twice her age. That means now we'd have been more equal - if we had married.

Amanda Lewin

You were 30 and wanted to marry a 14 year old? In the UK you'd have been arrested.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

So would the father of St Francis of Sales then.

He married her, when she was fourteen, and he was older than 30.

Btw, I was 28.

Amanda Lewin

Yes, but now we have laws Hans to protect against sexual deviance

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As said, St Thomas does not count such a thing as a perversion.

If you believe it is "sexually deviant" and should be stopped, you are believing doctrines of evil spirits.

As St Paul told St Timothy people would do in the last days.

Funny your putting it that way. Your laws no longer protect against sodomy.

Amanda Lewin

NO, you are hiding behind what you think will allow you to carry on being sexually corrupt with little girls.. You are using the Holy Catholic Church and hiding behind it... Sound familiar?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think you are confusing me with some network of priests introduced about the time of Novus Ordo.

I am not "being sexually corrupt" with little girls.

Other subthread:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"they were kept inside until we left."

That is how ex-pupils, including the one I was hoping to marry, were treated when I was around.

LAG

Hans - why do you think so may people were concerned?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Because of the ideology they believe and I am fighting against.

I could also mention an occasion where I was simply trying to distribute a pro-life leaflet.