Prohibition Of "Sex With A Minor" Should Not Be A Law.
NOTE:: Please have an open mind and not succumb to answers with emotional involvement.
***DISCLAIMER***:: I AM NOT PROMOTING ANY ACTIONS THAT CAN BE DEEMED ILLIGAL/UNLAWFULL IN THE U.S.A. OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY WHERE SUCH ACTIONS CAN AND/OR IS "ILLIGAL/UNLAWFUL. THIS DEBATE IS MERELY FOR EDUCATIONAL AND PERSPECTIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.**
Yes, it should.
Side Score: 21
|
 |
No, it should not.
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
|
There is no single age in which a child is ready to have sex with an adult. The younger the child less likely it is that they are ready to make decisions about sex. You can say "well some 14 year old are mature enough for it". Well okay but that isn't a reason for the age of consent to be 14. There are plenty of 14 year olds that are not ready for it and it is impossible for the person who wants to have sex with them to know whether they are ready or not. And no, readiness in this context has nothing to do with biological features. Really most countries discriminate between sex with a minor older than 13 and one younger than 13. The sentencing is often very different. However, in countries like USA in which you get a life sentence for viewing sexual images of minors I guess any such distinction would be purely academic... EDIT: I chose 14 as a random age btw... the age of consent here is 13 (increased from 12 a few years ago) and in many European countries it is in early teens. I don't really have an opinion on when it should be set. Side: Yes, it should.
There are plenty of 14 year olds that are not ready for it and it is impossible for the person who wants to have sex with them to know whether they are ready or not. I'm sure you would agree that our body is highly intelligent yes? In this high intelligence, it would not make errors without defection right? Your body also lets you know what you can and cannot do correct? such as, but not limited to, you being able to lift 100lbs because your body has been built to do so; running for a limited amount of time then not being able to run any further; passing out from certain pain due to your body not being able to withstand such pain; etc. So knowing that your body is highly intelligent, naturally tells you what you can and cannot do, and gives signals when it is time for you to do something (e.g. hunger), then why would your body tell you it is time for you to have sex by internal emission of hormones leading to sexual thoughts, resulting in sexual acts?- which would only cease or be prevented by imposing laws directed to so. Are you saying our body is stupid for leading us to believe we are ready for sex? You seem to think that we just become 'biologically ready' and nothing else happens. But not only do we become biologically ready, our body tells us that we are ready for sex. We do not need persuasion from an adult, our body is enough persuasion as is. Side: No, it should not.
I'm sure you would agree that our body is highly intelligent yes? In the same way a snowflake is intelligent: as a metaphor. In this high intelligence, it would not make errors without defection right? No. The body often makes mistakes. Cancer being an example. Your body also lets you know what you can and cannot do correct? Yes. In all your examples the body doesn't let you do more than can cause you physical harm. It receives information that it is about to be harmed, in all your examples, by a stress response. Getting erections etc shows that you are physically ready to have sex. The body of a toddler could physically have sex. If a toddler boy was to try and put his penis in someone's vagina, the body would tell them nothing that said they shouldn't. There is no great physical stress. Their body is strong enough to not be physically damaged by the insertion. Are you saying our body is stupid for leading us to believe we are ready for sex? I'm saying, outside the mind, the body has no intelligence. The important thing in having sex is emotional maturity which has to be viewed within the concept of society. Side: Yes, it should.
1
point
As a father I can't condone sex with a minor. However your argument is very logical Harvard. Centuries ago women would become married shortly after receiving their period. That is when their body has reached maturity. So physically yes they are ready at age 14 and even younger. However mentally today's average youth is not capable of that form of reasoning. I think that we have to be realistic in our expectations though, if a person is responsible enough to drive a car surely they are mentally able to make decisions about who/when to have sex. I'm not condoning it, I'm just saying that it merits discussion. Side: No, it should not.
1
point
Why is that so? Someone 18 can have an emotional connection with a 14 year old. So why should they not be allowed to have sex? Put it like this; (1) the girl is physically mature and biologically ready to have sex; (2) so is the 18 year old; (3) numbers is the only thing that separates these two (aside from gender); (4) also, most 14 year old girls are more mature than 18 year old boys (sensibly and mentally); so (5) again, what is it that makes it so these two should not engage in natural sexual activity? Side: Yes, it should.
2
points
2
points
Legally for me it depends on what state the minor lives in. The states that believe a 13 yr old girl doesn't need parental notification to have an abortion should be allowed to have sex with someone of any age. If a girl is mature enough to make a decision on surgery by herself is certainly mature enough to know who she wants to spread her legs for. A girl is either mature enough or not in both cases. On a personal level, I think we should protect kids and keep the statutory laws plus require minors to get parental consent for an abortion. Parents either have rights over their kids til they reach adulthood or not. I side with the parents. Side: Yes, it should.
1
point
|
3
points
Knowing that most minors (12/13+) are biologically able to reproduce (which means it's time to have sex) then there should be no laws that prohibit what the body is naturally ready for. In the wild, the minute an animal is ready to reproduce, they do (or at least try). And humans are part of these animals- only with 'legalities' trying to mask and reject what our anatomy says is okay to do. Side: No, it should not.
The validity of you argument rests on biology as the signal for when sex should be deemed appropriate for minors, and on the concern that reproduction will occur. Society's normally adopt laws meant to prevent harm to members of the society. We no longer live in small groups where survival is a daily group effort. In these small numbers an additional child to share in the work of surviving and eventually to add to the survival of the group can be seen as a benefit to the group. In many ways survival, as well as success, is a much more individual responsibility in the society's we live in today. Children having children are far more of a detriment to our type of very large and complex society. This is primarily do to a child's inability to provide for themselves. Hence laws are made to prevent the harm. Side: Yes, it should.
The validity of you argument rests on biology as the signal for when sex should be deemed appropriate for minors, and on the concern that reproduction will occur. Precisely. Society's normally adopt laws meant to prevent harm to members of the society. In regards to the topic; today societies--lets just say 'U.S.'--enforce these laws with their reason being that minors are not developed enough physically, mentally, and emotionally to succumb to such decision on having sex- as you may know, the law does not state that one is punished if one has a baby, you are punished just for the intercourse and age difference. Basically, they do not mainly enforce these laws for societal detriment purposes. My argument is that the human body says the opposite of the laws reasoning's of why minors should not have sex. Children having children are far more of a detriment to our type of very large and complex society. This is primarily do to a child's inability to provide for themselves. Hence laws are made to prevent the harm Your answers are derived from 'percentages' and 'statistics', but not all teenagers--I wouldn't call them 'children'--are unable to provide and/or take care of a child, so a 'law', in this case, should not be implemented in someone's life in regards to decisions that are naturally acceptable. Side: Yes, it should.
Biological capacity for reproduction is a red herring in the discussion of this particular prohibition. Many if not most persons have sexual intercourse before attaining the legal age of majority. The issue is not about preventing them from having intercourse, nor yet about preventing youth pregnancies. The prohibition is primarily directed at preventing those who have attained and surpassed the legal age of majority from abusing the disproportionate power their age imbues upon them in relationship to minors (e.g. power of authority, power of experience, power of mental development, etc.). Implementation could stand to be become more nuanced, but the principle of the prohibition has tenable validity. Side: Yes, it should.
This "The prohibition is primarily directed at preventing those who have attained and surpassed the legal age of majority from abusing the disproportionate power their age imbues upon them in relationship to minors" is a faulty generalization due to accident. Laws prohibit minors from having sex with each other, because this it is fallacious of you to say "have attained the legal age". You cannot impose 'general acceptance' when regarding laws- this has been attempted numerous times, and still is, but it will be a failure if the laws explicitly state something being illegal and you committed that illegality. The issue is not about preventing them from having intercourse This is false due to laws prohibiting minors from having sex with anyone regardless of age. --- disproportionate power their age imbues upon them in relationship to minors (e.g. power of authority, power of experience, power of mental development, etc.). And this can be presupposed for peoples the age 18 and 40, what's the difference between 14/18 and 18/40? Wait.... don't tell me it's a biological/psychological difference? Because, as stated, that would be a red herring correct? Side: Yes, it should.
Humans are different. We have a longer childhood, and have became that way over thousands of years of civilisation as we are less likely to die, so don't need to have lots of offspring asap in order for our species to survive. Many young women, although fertile, are not capable of carrying and giving birth to a baby naturally (see fistula) as their bodies are too small. Side: Yes, it should.
|
