The Age of Consent

[Federal Farmer]

Neither penetration nor most other types of sexual behavior would typically induce physical harm upon a 7 year old.

Are you speaking from experience?? Are you a Board Certified Medical Doctor? Frankly, what you are is FULL OF SH!T.

 

[Agnapostate]

Are you mentally challenged? I have accused you of exactly NOTHING. Now, if you have a guilty conscience about something, that's not my problem, so keep your assumptions to yourself.

If I was mentally challenged, I do not offer "informed consent" to your attacks here. Arrest him!

There's nothing "parallel" about it, and it doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet, hold your breath until you turn blue, of fall to the floor and throw a tantrum. It's a RED HERRING argument, that has absolutely no basis in reality, or in the law.

You claimed that sexual interactions between a regular human and a mentally retarded person were morally wrong because they did not involve informed consent. I stated several other forms of interactions between humans and animals that also did not involve informed consent, and would also be considered crimes if performed on a mentally sound human without their "informed consent," and asked why you did not see the inconsistency. Why did you not respond?

We WERE supposed to be discussing the "age of consent", but it appears that you're only interests revolve the sexual aspect, exclusive of all other areas of life, which as I clearly stated in my first post in this thread, it intellectually dishonest, and morally bankrupt.

While the phrase age of consent typically does not appear in legal statutes, when used with in relation to sexual activity, the age of consent is the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent of consenting to sexual acts. This should not be confused with the age of majority, age of criminal responsibility, or the marriageable age.

 

[Federal Farmer]

If I was mentally challenged, I do not offer "informed consent" to your attacks here. Arrest him!

That makes no sense whatsoever, would you care to try again?

You claimed that sexual interactions between a regular human and a mentally retarded person were morally wrong because they did not involve informed consent.

No I did not, I said that the mentally challenged MAY be precluded from certain activities, rights and priviliges IF they are too challenged to be able to give "informed consent". Words have meaning, so please, do try to keep up.

I stated several other forms of interactions between humans and animals that also did not involve informed consent, and would also be considered crimes if performed on a mentally sound human without their "informed consent," and asked why you did not see the inconsistency. Why did you not respond?

Frankly because anyone who would seriously ask that question is beyond any possibility of engaging in intellectual discourse.

Oh, and Wiki might be a good starting point, but it is no substitute for proper legal foundation.

 

[Agnapostate]

That makes no sense whatsoever, would you care to try again?

You first.

No I did not, I said that the mentally challenged MAY be precluded from certain activities, rights and priviliges IF they are too challenged to be able to give "informed consent". Words have meaning, so please, do try to keep up.

And why is that? And how do you justify the inconsistency?

Frankly because anyone who would seriously ask that question is beyond any possibility of engaging in intellectual discourse.

Oh, and Wiki might be a good starting point, but it is no substitute for proper legal foundation.

Then we are discussing the age of sexual consent. I was interested in discussing other age restrictions, but I didn't want to throw things at you too quickly.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

As lunatics like FF squeal about the rights of the foetus on the basis that you cannot put a date on when it turns into a person surely to be consistent he must be against having an age of consent at all as nobody can say when a child turns into an adult.

 

[Agnapostate]

I personally would say upon the advent of menarche and spermarche, although I am sure Fierce Fascist would have a different analysis, so I will permit him to answer.

 

[Agnapostate]

I'm actually interested in expanding this discussion somewhat, so I will post a link to another thread on another forum that I have debated this issue on. That forum is also more suitable to discussion of youth-related topics, although there is something I must state very plainly before I post the link.

It is a discussion forum that accomodates all civil guests, and it does not represent the positions of the organization that hosts the forum. My perspective on the age of consent is mine and mine alone, and the same goes for the others on that forum. Moreover, in-depth discussion of the morality of pedophilia or child sexuality is prohibited there. This is intended to be a discussion of the age of consent as it relates to the civil rights of youth.

Here is the link to the thread: http://forums.youthrights.org/showthread.php?t=14248

I would encourage you to register and post there to expand our discussion. My username is Agnapostate there too.

 

[The Scotsman]

This is becoming a very emmotionaly charged debate I would ask you guys to please keep in mind the rules of the forum regarding personal abuse. I can see this thread going downhill rapidly if insults start getting hurled around and I do not want to start handing out infractions!

Cool heads guys.....cool heads please!

 

[Agnapostate]

All right, I'm sorry if I stepped over the line anywhere. It's an emotionally charged topic.

 

[The Scotsman]

All right, I'm sorry if I stepped over the line anywhere. It's an emotionally charged topic.

........... the warning was not aimed at anyone specifically - more everyone generally!

 

[Federal Farmer]

You first.

It's YOUR statement that doesn't make any grammatical sense, now would you care to rephrase it, or do you want me to assume that you're just another babbling idiot?

And why is that? And how do you justify the inconsistency?

There is no inconsistancy! Depending on the level of incapacity, mentally challenged persons are routinely denied the ability to drive automobiles, purchase or possess firearms, enter into contracts, and many other things that 'normal' people are not denied, because of their lack of ability to make an "informed consent" to the ramifications and responsibilities that attenuate those rights and priviliges. The same concept applies to 'minors', as they too lack the mental ability to make an informed consent, because they cannot comprehend the ramifications and responsibilities that accompany those rights and priviliges.

Then we are discussing the age of sexual consent. I was interested in discussing other age restrictions, but I didn't want to throw things at you too quickly.

If you are only interested in discussing sexual activity related to minors, then I have nothing to add to the discussion, as the Right of the State, through it's "compelling interest" in preventing that is well documented, has been for hundreds of years, and is NOT open for debate. As for the restrictions in other areas, I've already touched on those, so it is you who is lagging well behind everyone else.

 

[Federal Farmer]

I personally would say upon the advent of menarche and spermarche, although I am sure Fierce Fascist would have a different analysis, so I will permit him to answer.

The "age of consent" is a function of the States, and not individual desire. The compelling interest of the States is well established, has been since before the United States even existed, and was quite well illucidated upon by none other than Lord William Blackstone, whose interpretation of the Law was the basis for the entire American jurisprudence system.

As I have previously stated, the only exception to that compelling interest would be if it interfered with other individual Rights as specifically enumerated in the Constitution. For instance, in the recent FLDS case in Texas, I have no problem with those members of the Mormon faith MARRYING (as opposed to simply fornicating as you APPEAR to be advocating) at ages below the States regulated ages, but ONLY because it falls within the scope of their First Amendment Right to freely exercise their religion as they see fit. This view is also supported by Lord Blackstone, who clearly stated that marriage at age 12 for girls and 14 for boys was perfectly acceptable, regardless of the fact that the age of majority was 21. It also complies with that same understanding because the States only compelling interest in MARRIAGE is that of contract law.

Now, you can call me a "fascist" all you want to, but the only thing it demonstrates is your own lack of comprehension of the Constitution and liberty specifically, and American law in general. The fact that you consistantly refer to a website that is primarily populated by young people only amplifies your egregious ignorance of the facts relevent to the discussion, as they are all basing their arguments on feelings and emotion, rather than facts and evidence.

 

[Agnapostate]

When your ban ends, I'm sure you'll be interested in getting back to this, so I'll continue.

It's YOUR statement that doesn't make any grammatical sense, now would you care to rephrase it, or do you want me to assume that you're just another babbling idiot?

It was a joke. Moving on now...

There is no inconsistancy! Depending on the level of incapacity, mentally challenged persons are routinely denied the ability to drive automobiles, purchase or possess firearms, enter into contracts, and many other things that 'normal' people are not denied, because of their lack of ability to make an "informed consent" to the ramifications and responsibilities that attenuate those rights and priviliges. The same concept applies to 'minors', as they too lack the mental ability to make an informed consent, because they cannot comprehend the ramifications and responsibilities that accompany those rights and priviliges.

It may not be an inconsistancy, but it is an inconsistency. And the fundamental issue is that I dispute that claim. I believe that age is too unreliable an indicator of mental maturity and competence to be considered a logically sound divider between persons of different classes.

If you are only interested in discussing sexual activity related to minors, then I have nothing to add to the discussion, as the Right of the State, through it's "compelling interest" in preventing that is well documented, has been for hundreds of years, and is NOT open for debate. As for the restrictions in other areas, I've already touched on those, so it is you who is lagging well behind everyone else.

That is what the age of consent as it is commonly interpreted is. If you want to discuss the age of majority or other age restrictions unjustly imposed upon minors, I would be pleased to do so. I started this thread upon prompting for you, and I would be more than happy to repeat that cycle.

 

[Dude111]

a 60 year old man and a 7 year old girl. He tells her he will buy her a new bike if she plays along with him and she wants the bike bad enough that she agrees to be sexual with him. Do you think this should be legal?

Why the hell would he want to??

Children do not look ATTRACTIVE for a reason: THEY ARE KIDS AND NOT READY FOR SEX!

Anyone that would rather do something with someone underage clearly has issues and is not stable!

Adults are ready MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY to enjoy each other....

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have a very different perspective on Agnapostate after reading this thread. I know what sex can do to a person who experiences it too young, and the after-effects last a whole lifetime. I am in NoBama's camp on this one.