Age of consent

A carryover from another thread. This is going to be talking about at what age should people be of the majority and even when they're below the majority, should they be allowed to make some important decisions by themselves.

Things such as schooling, abortion, drinking, voting, marriage, emancipation, sex, surgery, etc. This could get a bit messy since this is dealing with a lot of topics, but let's try and keep the main focus on the topic of "age of consent".

Here are a couple relevent websites:
Ageofconsent.com
Avert age of consent
Wikipedia: Age of Consent

Here's the post that started this:

Busta said:

I'm inclined to agree.
This is off topic, but relevant to consistency:
If a 14 yearold can not make her own decision to marry, should she be allowed to make her own medical decisions?

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. (Let's pretend, for the sake of this argument, that emancipation is not a factor). The parents, guardians, or people acting in loco parentis should be the ones deciding how to medically raise the child. I can think of numerous instances where this position could be problematic:
Abortion (obviously). A child has had sex but doesn't want to tell the parent(s) or even worse, the parent is the culprit.
Religious concerns: A 15 year old will die without a blood transfusion but due to his parents' religious beliefs, no blood transfusion may be given. The 15 year old wants to live and have the BT but his parents say no and that prayer will work.
Unnecessary plastic surgery: Parents allowing children to get breast implants or other inappropriate plastic surgery.

shuamort said:

No, I don't think so. (Let's pretend, for the sake of this argument, that emancipation is not a factor). The parents, guardians, or people acting in loco parentis should be the ones deciding how to medically raise the child. I can think of numerous nstances where this position could be problematic:

Click to expand...

The problem is that often when there is a disagreement, it is because the parents are the problem, in such things as incest pregnancy etc. That is why, regardless of the law and the focus, there should be some kind of not-to-traumatic judicial bypass option, one that actually works.

steen said:

The problem is that often when there is a disagreement, it is because the parents are the problem, in such things as incest pregnancy etc. That is why, regardless of the law and the focus, there should be some kind of not-to-traumatic judicial bypass option, one that actually works.

Click to expand...

It is the parent's job, not the state's job, to raise their children. If the parents say "no", the answer is "no". The only time that there should be any kind of Judicial bypass is when the child's life is in danger and the parents are found to be unfit.

What are some of the problems that exist with the current Judicial bypass?

Busta said:

It is the parent's job, not the state's job, to raise their children. If the parents say "no", the answer is "no". The only time that there should be any kind of Judicial bypass is when the child's life is in danger and the parents are found to be unfit.

What are some of the problems that exist with the current Judicial bypass?

Click to expand...

Anti-choice judges installed by anti-choice politics. There have been judges who so oppose abortions that they ignore the purpose of the judicial bypass and deny any request for a bypass when a teen asks for an abortion, even if the problem is the kid's father being the father of her child as well, even if she is 13-14-15 years old.

Such moralistic absolutism, contrary to the actual, established law is a clear indication that the judicial bypass is failing and placing kids in danger from their own parents' moral unfitness.

I think that you and I agree that Judges should not be either pro or con choice. Strict interpretation of the law is their job.

I fail to see how an abortion addresses the issue of the father's abuse. Sure, removing the unborn child from the situation prevents that future child from being abused by the father, but it does not prevent the girl from further abuse. Since, in this situation, the father is the problem and the girl is the victim, a Judicial Bypass for abortion does not address the problem.

Busta said:

I think that you and I agree that Judges should not be either pro or con choice. Strict interpretation of the law is their job.

I fail to see how an abortion addresses the issue of the father's abuse. Sure, removing the unborn child from the situation prevents that future child from being abused by the father, but it does not prevent the girl from further abuse. Since, in this situation, the father is the problem and the girl is the victim, a Judicial Bypass for abortion does not address the problem.

Click to expand...

It addresses the problem of the kid being pregnant with her own brother or sister, certainly.

steen said:

It addresses the problem of the kid being pregnant with her own brother or sister, certainly.

Click to expand...

Abortion doesn't address the crimes of the father.
Here's another angle: What if she want's to have the child, but the father doesn't?

Busta said:

Abortion doesn't address the crimes of the father.
Here's another angle: What if she want's to have the child, but the father doesn't?

Click to expand...

What the father wants is irrelevant, as he then is a criminal and is going to jail for the next 30+ years. That aside, prolifers insist that parents have the right to decide for their teens, so if mommy insist that she have an abortion, then she is forced to do so per prolife rules, right?

steen said:

What the father wants is irrelevant, as he then is a criminal and is going to jail for the next 30+ years. That aside, prolifers insist that parents have the right to decide for their teens, so if mommy insist that she have an abortion, then she is forced to do so per prolife rules, right?

Click to expand...

That's right.

So if a man raped and impregnated his 13-year-old daughter, you'd be fine with that?! You're willing to let a child who's obviously already suffered enourmously go through further hell by carrying and giving birth to a baby? That's frightening, that you care more about the unborn than a child who's already alive. Do you have a daughter? Imagine if someone raped her at a young age, God forbid. Would you still say the same thing?

Age of consent regarding sex should be 16. Regarding minor surgery and medical treatment, I don't see why it shouldn't be 14. When I was 15 my mother was able to commit me to a psychiatric ward without my consent (I hasten to add that although I was depressed, I wasn't even a danger to myself), and refused to let me out until my shrink all but ordered it. It was bloody annoying and ended up doing more harm than good. If I'd been old enough to make my own decisions regarding medical treatment, she would have had to get the police involved in order to involuntarily commit me. What really frightens me is that if they'd suggested electro-shock therapy (and they'd considered it for a time), which I am completely against, she'd have most likely said yes - and I'd have been powerless to stop it. *shudders at the thought*

Gah! How very One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.

"So if a man raped and impregnated his 13-year-old daughter, you'd be fine with that?!"
Please cut-&-past where I said that.

"You're willing to let a child who's obviously already suffered enormously go through further hell by carrying and giving birth to a baby?"
Yes. The unborn child should have the Right to Live irregardless of what immature decision that the mother made, or crime that was committed agents the mother, which brought that unborn child into existence.

"That's frightening, that you care more about the unborn than a child who's already alive."
No, not more. Equal.

"Do you have a daughter?"
No, but I'm God father to a Niece; does that count?

"Imagine if someone raped her at a young age, God forbid. Would you still say the same thing?"
Yes. The unborn child should have the Right to Live irregardless of what immature decision that the mother made, or crime that was committed agents the mother, which brought that unborn child into existence.

Well, I have a problem with children giving birth to inbred babies. How very uncivilised of me. :roll:

vergiss said:

Well, I have a problem with children giving birth to inbred babies. How very uncivilised of me. :roll:

Click to expand...

So do I. That's why children should not be impregnated, at all, let alone by relatives. So the immorality of insest or pedophilia is not what we disagree on.

"So thus kids need to get parental permission to go to the doctor?"
Yes. The only time a minor can receve medical attention without parental concent is in the event of an emergency; and even then the E.M.T., Paremedic, Nurse, Doctor, Etc, can only stables the patient. Abortion would be covered in this premise if the pregnancy has placed the child's live in immediate danger.

Only consenting adults can enter into a contract. A "Consent to Treat" form as well as a "Waver of Liability" are contracts, so a dependent minor can not agree to them.

There are many ways that a parent can give permision for treatment without being present. A short list of methods are: A phone, a fax, an e-mail, an appointment, and placing the child as an authorized user to an insurance policy.

Doctores have rules regarding what they can and can not do when the parents are unreachable. The ailments that you listed sound like they required immediate medical attention, even if they were not emergencies.

When the pregnancy does not place the child's life in immediate danger, abortion is an *elective* procedure (remember?...you can choose to do it or not...). An *elective* procedure should not be performed w/o parental knowledge and consent, because it is not an injury or infection. A child should no more be allowed to get an *elective* abortion with out parental knowledge and concent any more then a nose job.

"If a kid wants an abortion, whatever, let it happen. It's not her parent's business, it's her's."
Aside from the moral debate on abortion, because it is the parents who are responsible for the health and well being of said minor child, any medical procedure that child receves, or wishes to receve, is %10001 the parent's business.

When that child is no longer her parent's responsibility, she can do as she wishes.

Until then, the parents can approve or revoke her license, approve or revoke her work permit, look at transcripts of her cell phone conversations, make her go to school, go thrue her room, approve or deni *elective* medical procedures....I could go on.

You see, a minor child either does or does not have a "Right to Privacy". If she does, then this miens that she is an adult and her parents have no legal obligation to her health and well being. As an adult, she can have an abortion w/o parental knowledge or concent, she can sue her parents for trespassing and invasion of privacy if they enter her room, read her e-mails or go through her locker at school, and a news organization can publish her name if she commits a crime.

If she does not have a "Right to Privacy", then this miens that she is not yet an adult; and the parents must provide her with food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, an education and make decisions of all kinds so as to ensure her well being. One of these decisions may be to allow the unborn child to be born, rather than to have it aborted.

If it is truly "her body, her choice", then why can she not enter into marriage, or even contract her own cell phone, w/o parental approval? If a 14 year old should be allowed to make all these choices on her own, then why don't we cut the bull**** and drop the legal age of adulthood from 18 to 14? Why are special exceptions only made regarding abortion?