Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dustbin writes:
>
>
>>Wouldn't you want your child protected by such a
>>law - I would?
>
>
> Such a law doesn't protect my child, it prevents her from making her own
> decisions.  She is already protected from rape by the other laws on
> rape.  Statutory rape laws are nothing more than the imposition of
> someone else's moral code upon my child, and no, I wouldn't want that.
>

I think we may be slightly at crosed purposes here.

I was speaking of what the law is. If I read you
correctly, you are concerned with the moral
imposition as you see the law.

This is very difficult matter. I certainly would
want to be a liberal and not impose any
unneccasary rules upon you - or your daughter.

But, if we abolish a minimum age and leave
youngsters free to make their own decision then
they *will* be taken advantage of.

The question that it strikes me arises: at what
age do we think the child is capable of making
that decision?

Presumably it cannot be as low as zero (e.g. no
prohibition at al). But then, if you think 16
years is too high and a moral imposition, at
what age is it not an imposition. Therein, I
think, lies the rub: the law says that age is
16. You disagree - fine. But wherever the law
sets the age there might be people like you who
say it is still too high. Or, perhaps, your
solution would be to set the age at the lowest
that anyone thinks it should be then it will, by
definition, be no higher than anyone thinks it
should.

Of course, under this circumstance a lot of
people would say it is far too low! I suppose
the law has to find a compromise - and that is
what we have.

D.









--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/22/05 7:59:33 AM ---