Not everywhere. If Wisconsin is like the UK, you only have to be 16. Or if it's like Chile, you'd only need to be 12 :)

it's only illegal if the person they are having sex with it over the age of 18 , because then they would be considered a minor . and it's not rape if it's consensual .

When are people going to understand. Not every state has the same laws. In MN, the legal consent age is 16, period. That's not true about it only being rape if it's not consensual. If a 14 year old is having sex with an 18 year old, that is statutory rape.

20- You type like a moron...

in Ohio the consent age is 16 :P

Florida also

Kansas too, as long as the other person isn't more than 5 years older than the "minor". So a 16 yr old can have sex with someone 21yr old and younger and so on. And once you're 18, you can have sex with anyone older than 16.

It's 16 in Washington as well. Only a few states have 18 as the age of consent, and they have statutes that prevent statutory rape charges if the two partners are close in age. Ex. if she is having sex with her 18-year-old boyfriend, even if the age of consent is 18, it is not rape. Ex. The age of consent in Florida is 18, but an exception permits a person 23 years of age or younger to engage in legal sexual activity with a minor aged 16 or 17. Age of consent really refers to when you can have sex with Hugh Heffner and have it not be statutory rape.

Wisconsin consenting age is 16, my boyfriend is 17 as well. Therefore, it is not illegal, and not rape. Thanks though :)

I went on a site, and plus I'M from Wisconsin, and it said 18. Same for California. Everywhere else is 16. Sucks. It actually is illegal.

Everyone hit on the fact that in most places it is legal to have sex at her age but skipped the fact that he called her a ***** in his comment. Having sex doesn't make you a *****. So, yes, it probably was legal, and no, she probably isn't a *****.

In Scotland the legal age is 16. So it's not rape. Educate yourself. Countries have a legal age of 14. Everywhere is different... Fucktard. Also, she's not a *****, but you are a judgemental piece of shit. **sexually active doesn't actually mean someone has had sex, they could have simply performed oral/hand jobs.

because she is a kid

Some people actually have a good relationship with their parents and decide not to hide EVERYTHING from them.

Unless she's ready to support herself and and potential child she creates, it IS her father's business! Don't give me that crap about using protection, either. There are probably dozens of people on this site who can tell you about pregnancies that happened while using "protection."

It's called abortion. And here in awesome Ontario Canada they are free :)

Yeah . . . that's awesome. Someone pays for it, child- nothing is free. No one pays more than an innocent child that didn't get to experience life - but apparently you're ok with that.

If she never had sex the kid wouldn't of exsisted either, so what's the difference? Don't get me wrong, they are not awesome. But you gotta do what you gotta do. But lets not start a religious debate. And putting off your life when you're ready for it is stupid. I'm not saying do it young if you can't handle it. And telling your father has nothing to do with handling it because NO daughter should EVER (not even when she is 56) tell her father she has sex.

Did you ever take science? Tadpoles and sperm COMPLETELY different. Tad poles are baby frogs. Sperm isn't anything. And if the sperm never met the egg, then it never would of been a baby.

Yes, dear -I've taken science. I happen to have a Master's Degree in Biology. For your information, abortion doesn't remove a sperm, it removes a fetus (an early stage of development for a human being) hence my insufficiently simplified illustration above.

Well bud, you're completely missing the point. If sperm never hits egg there will not be baby. I understand that once there is an abortion there is a baby. But the point is the baby was never meant to be IF like you say they should never of had sex to begin with to avoid baby. WELL why avoid sex to not have baby when we have other things like Birth control pills, condoms, Plan B... and yeah last resort Abortions. Obviously they shouldn't be having sex if they are too stuipid to use protection but that really isn't the issue on the table here with this FML.

I disagree, lucky. Should I announce my sexual activity to my dad because my husband and I wouldn't be able to financially support an accidental child? The most important thing right now is for the mother to make sure OP has a FULL and CORRECT understanding of how to protect herself and her partners from disease and unplanned pregnancy. That includes listening to the OP, and helping her decide for herself if she'll be willing to choose between abortion, adoption, or raising a baby in case of a birth control failure. If sex hasn't been an approachable topic of discussion, I'll bet the OP isn't getting enough education about it at home. The best thing to do is try to remove the awkwardness at both ends; forcing the OP to confront her dad is likely to have the opposite effect at this point.

If you see no difference between avoiding conception and aborting a pregnancy (because the end result = no child) then there is no reason to avoid sex. If you see a big difference (as I do) then sex should be avoided because birth control methods cannot guarantee to avoid conception. That's why.

118: If you're married, it's assumed that you are sexually active; no need to torture Dad with the details. If you're of age, then he's no longer responsible for you or any accidental children you may have, although he may choose to assist you financially. The OP, however, is 17 and single. Her father is still responsible for her and ANY mistakes she makes, I.e. car wrecks, vandalism, etc. He has a right to know about any risks she is assuming on his behalf.

MOST technical pregnancies (aka a fertilized egg imbedding itself in your uterine lining) end in miscarriage~ about 60%. The mother simply doesn't know about it because the miscarriage happens in just a couple days. That is NOT the same thing as loosing your newborn to SIDS. It's just not. Also, condoms + the pill = very effective. ALSO, the only two options aren't keep or abort. There is also adoption.

132: your statements are all true of course but you seem to be drawing a parallel between miscarriage and abortion - failure to thrive does not equal intentional intervention. Abortion, and SIDS are not the same to YOU simply because you've become emotionally attached. Condoms+ pill = highly effective, NOT fully effective. Adoption: we agree completely.

#86 what the **** is wrong with you. When getting an abortion your being a selfish immature bitch. Abortion= killing a baby that has not even lived yet. Dont have sex and you won't "need" an abortion. Your ****** up.