Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dustbin writes:
>
>
>>But, if we abolish a minimum age and leave
>>youngsters free to make their own decision then
>>they *will* be taken advantage of.
>
>
> Some will.  But the same is true of adults.
>
> The real reason for these laws, however, is not to prevent abuse of
> children; it is to prevent children from adhering to a moral code less
> restrictive than that favored by some adults.
>
Certainly, almost all laws imply some moral
imposition. Some rules and someone is ruled. I
wrestled with this theoretical problem years
ago. I didn't really come up with a satisfactory
solution.
>
>>The question that it strikes me arises: at what
>>age do we think the child is capable of making
>>that decision?
>
>
> It's not a question of age, it's a question of the individual.  The
> decisions in question are not that important, despite the hugely
> exaggerated emphasis given to them by society, so it doesn't take much
> to make the decisions competently.
>
I could not agree that, say, a five-year-old
cold make such a decision. You say it is not a
matter of the decision concerned.

I find it difficult to avoid the fact that
somewhere along the line the growing person must
reach a point at which they are able to decide
that they will or will engage in sex.

Perhaps as an adult you think it does take much
to make the decision. I am sure many will
disagree with you.
>
>>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.
>
>
> I don't believe in setting an age.  The rules can be the same as they
> are for adults: no means no, and yes means yes.
>
But can a child understand the implications of
saying yes? I seems you think that a child can.
But it still leaves the question in my mind; at
what age is the child sufficiently cpmpetent to
decide *yes* or *no*. I am not arguing about non
mean o and yes means yes; I am questioning at
what age the growing person has the intellectual
development to make that determination.
>
>>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.
>
>
> The most logical dividing line is puberty, but since puberty is around
> age 12, and most people in countries like the U.S. are too prudish to
> face this reality, the legal age is often much higher, sometimes
> ridiculously so.
>

There I would agree with you. If we are to say
that a child is not fully sexually developed
until puberty and that they should not engage is
sexual behaviour prior to that then we have much
more potential agreement between us.

If you proposed that the age of consent be
reduced to some point reflecting the experience
of puberty whether that is onset or completetion
- fine.

However, since completion of puberty is the
point at which the growing person reaches sexual
maturity and that occurs two or three years
after onset we would still be setting the age
limit at about 16 years of age - possibly a
little under.

D.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/22/05 12:00:08 PM ---