Re: A group of pro life people exposed planned parenthood for the hypocritical scum b
Funny thing though that psychologists, parents, the law, insurance companies, and practically everybody but people desiring sex with children acknowledges that children--even teens--are less mature in ways that can make them vulnerable.
Oh, thanks. Here we go.
Teens are not "children" in any morally relevant sense of the word, a conclusion supported by the fact that several studies have found that adolescents have similar levels of decision-making competence to adults when it comes to making important medical decisions. The most notable study on this issue is that of
Weithorn and Campbell, entitled
The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions. They tested several different age groups (aged 9, 14, 18, and 21 years) in an effort to estimate the decision-making competence of minors as compared to adults. Their conclusion was that the competence levels of 14 year olds was equivalent to that of adults, and though that of the 9 year olds was not, they did not lack decision-making skills altogether.
The conclusion of the authors was that
"In general, minors aged 14 were found to demonstrate a level of competency equivalent to that of adults, according to four standards of competency (evidence of choice, reasonable outcome, rational reasons, and understanding), and for four hypothetical dilemmas (diabetes, epilepsy, depression, and enuresis). Younger minors aged 9, however, appeared less competent than adults according to the standards of competency requiring understanding and a rational reasonable process. Yet, according to the standards of evidence of choice and reasonable outcome, even these younger minors appeared competent. Children as young as 9 appear to be capable of comprehending the basics of what is required of them when they are asked to state a preference regarding a treatment dilemma. And, despite poorer understanding of disclosed information, the 9-year-olds tended to express clear and sensible treatment preferences similar to those of adults...The findings of this research do not lend support to policies which deny adolescents the right of self-determination in treatment situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity to provide informed consent. The ages of eighteen or twenty-one as the “cutoffs” below which individuals are presumed to be incompetent to make determinations about their own welfare do not reflect the psychological capacities of most adolescents."
Other studies that might prove illuminating are those of Grisso and Vierling, Mann et al., Embree and Dobson, Ambuel and Rappaport, and to some extent, Koocher and DeMason. A recent confirmation of previous research by
Kuther and Posada should also prove illuminating. The majority of them regard the issue of minors' ability to provide informed consent to medical treatment, but hold wider implications for policy issues related to adolescents.
Grisso and Vierling's study,
Minors’ Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective, came to a similar conclusion, the authors stating that
“existing evidence provides no legal assumption that minors aged 15 years and above cannot provide competent consent.”
In short, I'm dubious as to the validity of claims that the mental functions of adolescents are inherently inferior to those of legal adults.
Rebellious and spineless were not words used in my post, in fact nothing suggesting those things was in my post. If you're going to disagree, at least disagree with what I said.
I was replying to the characterization promoted in your post, not any specific language.
The legal definition varies from State to State and country to country, there is no uiniversal cut-off date.
You're referring to the legal age of consent, not the psychological definition of pedophilia. The term "pedophilia" has been abused and misdefined by the mass media for the purpose of achieving political and financial gains. Pedophilia, properly defined, is a prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Thus, neither a sexual attraction to nor a sexual relationship with an adolescent would qualify as "pedophilia."
Yes, that's true, but people's lifetimes were shorter too so there was pressure to start as soon as they were viable. A 13 year old may be able to conceive (I read about a 5 year old in the Phillipines who is currently the youngest female ever to get pregnant) but at 13 is neither physically or emotionally mature enough to do a good job of parenting in today's world.
That is not a rational objection unless you recommend that people should reproduce and possess adult rights at age 30 or 40 should medical advancements extend the human lifespan to 150 or so. Do you?
We don't need to pass judgment on what people used to do, but it's good to know so that we have perspective. Many, many things have been done in the past that we have learned not to do now.
I will openly state that many facets of pre-adolescent society were preferable to current society, with the unnecessary social construct of adolescence having been implemented.
