Being under 18 shouldn't make you a slave

If it's "extremely generous," then there are numerous individuals below eighteen who have the capacity to exercise their rights on their own behalf, which the legal system denies them. You don't have the right to "protect" someone that doesn't want protection and is, by your own admission, mentally competent.

Hairsplitting, in my opinion. Denying a mentally competent person the freedom to exercise his rights is equally unjust, no matter what age that mentally competent person is.

 

How are you defining "children"? Everyone under 18? What about 17 year old "children" who are just as--if not more--independent and self-sufficient as yourself? Why should they be denied the ability to exercise their rights by someone else? This is just as unjust as denying them to a mentally competent 40 year old on the same basis. They used to use the same "protection of the incapable" argument to justify denying women their rights.

I agree that mentally competent people require guardianship, but I don't assume that mental competence is defined by a magic number.

Why is it that people with your viewpoint are so focused on sex, sex, sex? You all seem to be obsessed with adult-child sex, which is rather disturbing. Most abuse occurs with in the home. The plurality of child sexual abuse cases involves stepfathers and live-in boyfriends of enabling mothers. The plurality of physical abuse cases involves the parents themselves, as you should know, being a "professional."

Indeed, denying minors the ability to exercise their own rights whether they are able to or not makes it all the more difficult for them to flee physically, sexually, or psychologically abusive parents, increasing the risk of abuse, just as a social structure that assumed all women should be legally dependent on their husbands increased the risk of abuse to them.

 

I'm asserting that if there's any crypto-pedophiles here, it's probably the ones that are constantly fretting and obsessing over it, not the people who are simply saying that all mentally competent individuals should be legally free to exercise their rights across the board (note: mentally competent individuals, not mentally incompetent ones, who of course require legal guardians or proxies to exercise their rights on their behalf). Usually, it's the people loudly and constantly worrying about it that have the inner turmoil (see: Mark Foley).

As for me, I think allowing teenagers the right to work and gain financial experience and self-sufficiency is a more important issue. So if you want to impart to me a selfish ulterior motive, it would make more sense to assume I'm a businessman who wants more cheap labor.

 

You show a complete lack of experience and knowledge of the subject of teenagers. They are not mini adults being oppressed because of their size, their brains are not fully developed, they don't have marketable skills, they don't have the social skills necessary to hold down a decent job...

you would keep them as a permanent underclass to exploit.

as for your pathetic reasoning about 'whuts the difference between 18 and 17 and 364 days'...the law is the difference, arbitrary as you may think it is. Your very arguments show the need for the law. As long as there are people out there that are willing to use and abuse other people for their own gain, there will have to be laws to protect those that can't protect themselves.

and for anyone that whines that it isn't fair...well welcome to the real world, life itself isnt fair.

 

Which teenagers? These teenagers or those teenagers? Why not take the bracing step of thinking of people as individuals instead of collective blobs.

And if no teenager had a marketable skill, you wouldn't need to ban them from working, since no one you be willing to hire them.

So basically, you admit that the difference between an 18 year old and 17 year old is legal fiction and that this legal fiction is unfair. And yet my opposition to it on those grounds justifies it? Why, that makes perfect sense to me </sarcasm>

How do I know that you are able to protect yourself? How old are you? Maybe we need to assign you a legal guardian to protect you.

 

Teenagers aren't banned from working. They have jobs all over the country. You aren't advocating for teens to be able to work. You are advocating for adults to have unlimited access to teenagers for whatever purpose they choose provided they can manipulate the kids into compliance.

 

You know just as well as I do that the laws aren't the same for people under 18 as they are for people over 18. You know this because, of course, you're defending it. I'm saying that we shouldn't have a double standard based on an arbitrary number.

If an individual can be shown to be too mentally incompetent to entire a binding contract, the contract shouldn't be enforceable. But competence isn't based on whether you're over or under 18; it's based on...competence! There are plenty of middle-aged people with less mental capacity to exercise their rights than many 13 year olds. It should be judged on a case-by-case basis depending on the particular situation and the particular mental capacity of the individuals involved.

 

As an under 18 I go to school every business weekday and do homework .ect but what really does annoy me is that we lack the freedom of speech. It is like I am property of my parents and I must agree with them on everything and when I do speak about issues especialy political ones I am never taken seriously, they treat me like because I do not pay taxes or vote that my political views are insignificant. But on the other side of things I do not have to worry about Work,Taxes,Bills,Mortage .ect So I suppose I will have to do well in secondary school to be able to get somewhere in the political field.

 

Here Here that is what I firmly believe our legal system should be based around; A case by case basis that judges an individual not an entire age group!

 

its too hard. seriously - you have to have some line in the sand- case by case would be too difficult to manage in a complex society ....

an example - currently the legal age a girl can have sex is 16 ... but lets say in your case by case world, some 40 year old screws a 13 year old. Chances are he has manipulated her - but lets give him the benefit of the doubt - she's physically mature, had boyfriends before, and was willling - so she was making an adult decision - wrong. At 13, mentally and emotionally she is still very much a child. this "adult" 13 year old goes through a tough cross examination by the defendant's lawyer to prove that she made an "adult" decision.

your case by case scenario would clog up courts with this kind of action - which would most likely be extremely traumatic for the young person concerned.

note - I am not talking about whether it is right or erong - just using this as an example of what "case by case" means ....


there are countless examples where kids get ripped off by sexual predators, employers, they could be trapped into expensive contracts which would be technically illegal under todays laws - but could cost them tens of thousands of dollars ...

I used to work with young people who were getting ripped off in these kinds of situations.

believe me - when you have done that for a few years, you'll be glad young peole have the protection they do get.

remember too - the age of majority used to be older than 18 in the past, and there still may be arguments for a more graduated entry into legal adulthood ... possibly even different "age of majority" for male and female ....

 

you know, you keep repeating the same thing over and over as if you believe that you 'win' by copying and pasting your same idea x number of times.

we get it. Your dream society is you as 'lord and master' over a population of uneducated orphans.

you dont' think children need protection, you don't think children need parents, you don't think they need education. You see no difference between someone that is nine and someone that is thirty.

but you have no evidence, you have no studies that show mental development patterns, you have nothing other than your own desires to buttress your position.

 

and how would that work exactly? Would everyone be assigned a lawyer at birth? would there be courts set up on the street corners so every three year old that didn't want to go to bed at a certain time could have his case heard?

 

not legal 'fiction' anymore than saying that the speed limit is 50 on this road and 35 on that road. It's a law not a storybook.

you don't even make sense, do you read what you type? And yet my opposition to it on those grounds justifies it? what does that even mean?

and 'marketable skills' means skills that will allow them to progress in their careers beyond sleeping with adults and do manual labor.

Please show me an example of these oppressed individuals...there must be a lot of them...who are you advocating for and why does that person not get themselves a lawyer (being so mature and competent) and sue to be emancipated? A process that does EXACTLY what you wail needs to be done...the only difference is the way the law is set up now, the DEFAULT is that a child needs protection to the age of x and you want to change it to be open season on all kids, to make the default be all kids are available to the NAMBLA membership.

right?

ps for an anarchist you sure love the whole idea of some giant nanny state.

 

I am trying to imagine how this would work:

a baby is born, the judges come in and declare it incompetent (well they would have to since by AV's imaginings we can't determine that simply thru age)

at which point the state would appoint a guardian...how would that be determined, AV? would people apply to be guardians? would they be vetted by a committee?

now, making the assumption that control of the child is not in the parent's hands (children being assumed to be competent) then who pays to educate, feed, clothe them? The state? the state appointed guardian?

and say this nine year old accidentally rides his bike into the side of your brand new Porsche...who pays to fix it? at nine, even as competent and mature as he may be, it's unlikely he'll have a lot of resources and assets...and since legally he is not a ward (being assumed competent) then you can't sue his parents for damages. You would have to go to court, sue him, have a competency hearing at which point there is two conclusions...he IS competent but has no assets so you lose...OR he is found incompetent...and you lose.

at which point though you can sue his parents and they can say "hey legally he's considered competent" and the onus would be on you to prove that they should have known that the nine year old was incompetent and had the courts record that for them before he wrecked your Porsche...

oh yeah, this would work SOOOO well...[/sarcasm]

 

Society does have a right to protect itself as well as the child who is known to have been not competent and yet to demonstrated otherwise. If those individuals opt not to demonstrate they have developed a new competence and instead choose to run out the clock on their childhood, it seems only reasonable to me that we set that clock at point where we can have confidence most of them have attained the maturity society requires.

I disagree. Considering a person known to have been incompetent who has never demonstrated competency as not competent seems quite reasonable. It's quite different and bears different consequences than declaring incompetent a person who society has declared an adult and for 80 years has competently and in compliance with societies laws amassed considerable assets and commitments.

 

Question to AbsoluteVolunteerest and others claiming to be championing children's rights..

If there were no legal restrictions... what would be the minimum age at which YOU would personally refuse to have sex with someone because they are too young.. regardless of how "mature and responsible" you think they act? Is there a minimum age at all?

 

And if they aren't competent.. we can change the definition of competence so that you can date them! YAY!

 

When we talk about competency in juveniles.. what are we comparing them to? Is the average 14 year old competent? Yes.. as competent as one is expected to be at 14.. which is not at all comparable to the competency expected of the average 16 year old in order to drive.. or the average 18 year old in order to be able to make life-defining decisions like entering the military or getting married. To legally be able to make those decisions their brains must have been given the opportunity to develop to the point that they can reasonable be expected to be capable of full cognition of the consequences of their actions...

Which is why "Age of consent" laws exist.

On the topic of CONSENT:

The main issue is that the vast majority of people do not fully understand the difference between COERCION, COMPLIANCE and CONSENT for the purpose of enforcing sex crime laws.

COERCION - the victim went along out of fear due to threats of violence against self, parents, etc. physical abuse, psychological abuse, being told they were going to get into trouble if they didn't, etc.

COMPLIANCE - The victim went along but did not have equal understanding of the full consequences of the act. Lack of Equal Understanding means that the maturity levels and life experience of the victim and the perp were so far apart that there is no logical way the victim and perp could have been on the same level of understanding as to the ramifications of the sex act. The victim did not understand that they could possibly be emotionally scarred for life. The victim did not understand that she / he would very possibly carry the reputation a teenager gains from having sex with men far too old for her / him.. far into their college years. The perp knew all of that. he fully understood everything he was doing. He fully understood that, unless he got caught or got her pregnant... there was no real risk of negative ramifications on him... and all the risk was on her.

CONSENT- Consent to a sexual act can only be given when both parties are fully aware of all of the possible negative outcomes of the act. Parties are close enough in age so that a reasonable person would assume that they both are capable of the same level of understandingof the impact the sex act could have on their lives in the long run, and both are willing to have sex anyway. There is no victim and no perp.

These *reasonable person would assume* definitions are based on the mental and emotional development of the average person at any given age. Their mental and emotional development determines their reasoning abilities, their intuition and perception. (cognition)

Cognition is why juveniles get prosecuted and sentenced under a different set of laws than adults. (Depending on the severity of the crime, of course) The majority of humans reach full cognition at or near what we consider to be adulthood. That’s why the *age of consent* laws stop there.

The average 15 year old does not have the cognitive abilities of the average 18 year old. The average 12 year old does not have the cognitive abilities of the average 15 year old. The younger of these will always be at a disadvantage in the decision making process. Therefore.. regardless of the fact that there may very well be compliance.. it is physically impossible for there to be consent.


In other words.. not only do we have the RIGHT to tell juveniles they can't participate in this or that because of their ages.. we have the LEGAL OBLIGATION to do so.

 

excellent post, thank you.

 

Now you have just taken my statement out of context I think it should not be judged on common things but more like things that could bring prosperity to a child's life like freedoms of speech and information, and the right to have a say (If reasonable) in what goes on in the affairs of a child, take school for instance. A mature child should be allowed to recomend things without being snubbed purely because of his/her age.

And please do not inflate my statements it makes you sound like a child.

 

Now pedophilia is against common morals as I said in a previous statement. I think that the case by case system should only be enforcable in human rights cases. Because as you said, unless you live on a tiny island with a extremely small population it may work but in a modern growing society it would be impossible.

 

well some here really really really LIKE the kiddies...

and I am not sure how you could claim your post was taken out of context when I quoted the whole of it in my reply. Please answer, how would that work?

YOU are the one advocating for this, explain how it works...or can you? because what you are advocating is simply good parenting and not 'exercising rights'

 

I didn't say anything about a tiny island - but never mind ....

human rights cases?

can you give an example of what you mean?

if you look at the international convention on the rights of the child you will see that rights include the right to protection, AND participation.


http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_30177.html

I fully support this convention - but I am mindful that children often do need protection,

and I draw your attention also to this:

http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_understanding.html

any situation forcing children to make decisions which they are too young to handle is contrary to the rights of the child, and our laws re designed to protect children from these situations, as well as more generally recognised situations of abuse and violence.

 

hey - and I am not in disagreement with you.

I do think at times children's voices are overlooked, when in fact they may have some valuable input.

I think the first thing to do when you find this happening is to look at how you present your argument - and to be honest - you say you are 12, and if that is the case - you do well.

 

Question to AbsoluteVolunteerest and others claiming to be championing children's rights..

If there were no legal restrictions... what would be the minimum age at which YOU would personally refuse to have sex with someone because they are too young.. regardless of how "mature and responsible" you think they act? Is there a minimum age at all?