So what were you saying that a 10-year-old ought to be able to handle when you responded to coqauvin a few posts back? The implication there, I felt, was that there are some things that 10-year-olds currently aren't allowed to do, but that you feel they should be allowed to do because they are prepared to handle it. Correct me if I misunderstood you.
Stop dancing around my question and answer it. If it's so ridiculously easy to judge, I shouldn't need a doctor to explain to me how to judge it; you should be able to tell me yourself. You don't have to be a medical professional to know the various signs and stages of sexual development (you should have learned that stuff in school, and if not, just go on Wikipedia and read the "puberty" article to find out). So again: I want you to tell me where in that process you think a person should be considered an adult.Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
That's not what I mean by ambiguous. I don't mean it allows for ambiguity in enforcement; I mean that your definition of adulthood, that legal adulthood should be based on sexual or physical development, is going to be far more inherently ambiguous, and thus difficult to put into practice, than you seem to realize. Again, before I go any further on this, I'll wait for your answer to the question above--exactly what biological criteria should be used?Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
It's quite dissimilar to what you've said. You are saying that the concept of legal adulthood at age 18 should be abolished, and instead people should be considered adults whenever they are sexually mature (whatever that really means--you still haven't explained); so that, for instance, it would be legal for an adult to have sex with a girl whenever she reaches that point in her physical development, no matter how old or young. On the other hand, what I'm saying is that sexual consent should continue to be based on a certain age--16 or 18 or whatever--but that the offense of statutory rape should be ameliorated in cases where there the defendant was mislead to believe that the girl was of legal age. Surely the difference is easy to understand?Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable
Bookmarks