Red Ranger 1 Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Of course it's not criminal, we're talking 1990s Australia, not a country where girls who get pregnant at 16/17 get stoned to death in the street.I get that you think Sophie shouldn't have slept with David and vice versa but what's done is done and it's undeniable that Sophie would be better off having a partner to help her care for Tamara, a living breathing human being who doesn't deserved to get written off as an abomination who never should have existed.Again, you're making the assumption they didn't use contraceptives which has never actually been stated on screen.David was a good person, sleeping with someone who was hardly a child does not mean he deserved to die and does not make him the villain of the piece and he was on the receiving end of Michael's temper quite enough as it was.It's a shame people didn't accept that at the time rather than precipitating this tragedy by overreacting.
Old H&A Fan Posted June 1, 2014 Report Posted June 1, 2014 Red Ranger 1, you seem to forget a few basic facts: 1. The baby would not have come about if they bothered to use contraceptives. It is not an assumption. That is a FACT. Unless the contraceptives failed somehow? 2. Sophie was not old enough to have children. Back then there was a recession, and there needed to be as many qualifications as possible for a chance at a decent future and to afford to bring up a baby. Sophie should have waited to complete her HSC and got herself a well-paid job in order to provide for this baby Why are you condoning teenage pregnancy so much, Red Ranger 1? Do you realise that it is not good for either the mother or the baby to have a future of uneducated poverty? As is being proved on-screen, Sophie is not ready, it is as plain as the nose on my face!!!!
c120701 Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 Red Ranger 1, you seem to forget a few basic facts: 1. The baby would not have come about if they bothered to use contraceptives. It is not an assumption. That is a FACT. Unless the contraceptives failed somehow? 2. Sophie was not old enough to have children. Back then there was a recession, and there needed to be as many qualifications as possible for a chance at a decent future and to afford to bring up a baby. Sophie should have waited to complete her HSC and got herself a well-paid job in order to provide for this baby Why are you condoning teenage pregnancy so much, Red Ranger 1? Do you realise that it is not good for either the mother or the baby to have a future of uneducated poverty? As is being proved on-screen, Sophie is not ready, it is as plain as the nose on my face!!!! Condoms are 98% effective now, but that could've been less in the early 90s.
Fyn3 Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 Why are you condoning teenage pregnancy so much, Red Ranger 1? Do you realise that it is not good for either the mother or the baby to have a future of uneducated poverty? As is being proved on-screen, Sophie is not ready, it is as plain as the nose on my face!!!! I don't think anyone is suggesting that teen pregnancy is an ideal situation, just that David was not a criminal and did not deserve to die for this unplanned pregnancy. He consummated his love for Sophie and she was a willing participant. They may or may not have been careless with protection but that does not make him an evil man and he definitely did not deserve to have his life cut so tragically short.
akiralx Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 I struggle to get through every scene that Sophie is in at the moment. They have make her very unlikable about 90% of the time with her constant screaming and crying. Absolutely - and after Pippa offers to care for the baby, Michael is concerned whether that and the housework will be too much for her. Bearing in mind Sophie will then have no job, no school, and no baby to care for she should be cleaning the house as well as doing any cooking!
Old H&A Fan Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 Are you forgetting how long Sophie has known this poor bastard who is as innocent as the day is long, couldn't hurt a fly and the sun shines out of him? He appeared in only 15 episodes, which represents a time span (on-screen at least) of not even a month. It's like Marilyn's hideously rushed decision to marry Phil, who was a complete stranger just 2 weeks before she left the Bay with him. What makes you so sure Sophie's wild fling with David was "love" and not just some overblown infatuation. You are so sure he was not a criminal, and boo hoo, the poor innocent little man didn't deserve to have his life cut short in such sad, tragic circumstances (oh purlease!,..... :sniffle sniffle:) for what is classed in some parts of the world as statutory rape. The fact remains, despite what you think that Sophie was a willing participant, she was under 18 years of age. Not yet an adult. Argue till the cows come home that the age of consent in NSW is 16 but the fact remains, Sophie had a lot of potential to do well at school, and make a decent future for herself, only to have it robbed from her, replaced by teenage motherhood and facing the dilemma of having to give up her child because she is not equipped to cope. And you say "love" justifies all this???
Fyn3 Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 ^ If this reply is to me, you have put a lot of words into my mouth. But I will say that the length of their relationship or whether it was love or not does not change my opinion that it is extremely unwarranted to label David as a monster. I also think that you are discrediting Sophie significantly by lumping all of the blame onto David.
Old H&A Fan Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 Errr..... what do you mean I am discrediting Sophie by blaming David?? What do you mean by discredit? Are you suggesting it's a credit that Sophie opened her legs to this monster (oh sorry — I mean respectable man who knows and stays within all about boundaries in relationships) and you're saying I'm giving all the credit to David because he ****ed her, wheres I should be giving Sophie some credit for opening her legs to him?
sindikatas Posted June 2, 2014 Report Posted June 2, 2014 In this case it would have been so much more practical if David had stayed alive. Look at this this way. He died and you celebrated his death for like 15 minutes. You might have felt good about his death because it was a punishment for complicating Sophie's life. But that's all there is to it. His death didn't help Sophie in any way. Whereas had he stayed alive, he could have helped Sophie with the baby and could have redeemed himself. It was a genuine mistake made by BOTH of them.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.