But this just engenders an additional question: "Who is and who isn't a child?" The current legislation dictating that 18 is a universal cutoff for adulthood seems more arbitrary and less based in moral precepts.
ill give you that one. and that answer has a direct impact on the end effect of this policy (if it were a policy).
but there are a LOT of legal consequences associated with that arbitrary cutoff that are integral to a wide variety of our day-to-day lives.
Want to move the age of majority down to 16? ok.... but this means that the creepy 40 year old down the street with the camaro can date your 16 year old sister... how OK are we with this law now?
we have defined, as a society, an arbitrary line where we have defined a person as not capable of adult decisions. We do this because when we go way down on the spectrum it is obvious (can that dude date ur 6 year old sister? oh hell no...) ok.... obvious. As we move up the spectrum it becomes less clear. Can he date your 17 year old sister? what's 1 year? Even a few months? I mean... that is a hard line. No fudge room in most states without excessive hoop jumping. So as a society we got together and looked at the gray area and picked something that appealed to everyone.
this entire discussion centers on the point of whether or not assumptions can be made about an entire group of people based on age, and if it is OK to repeal such regulation when faced with statistical outliers. It seems so simple when we keep the discussion to something innocuous or even admirable like professional endeavor.
But if we are accepting the point that young people mature emotionally and mentally at different rates then we cannot really restrict the conversation only to academic ability (i mean... does it sound reasonable to claim factually that young people develop at different rates, but this development is restricted to the science, math, art, and music centers of the brain? -did i miss any classifications of child prodigy? gamers....?) Ive been a little entertained by the irony for awhile now, actually. The line at 18, whether appropriate or not, serves a purpose.
if we accept outliers in academia we have to accept outliers in every aspect of human development. we dont necessarily need to keep on the creepy pedo vibe though... but along similar lines, maybe there ARE 16 year olds who are ready to have families and make decisions about how they do so. maybe there are 12 year olds (wanted to keep it on topic to thread
). The issue at the heart of this is whether or not it is appropriate to abandon a generalization - and subsequent rules- simply because a minority of people don't fit the mold.
this is all coming down, again, on adult/child interactions. if we assume it is ok for children to be exposed to this (and this discussion hasnt proposed any alternative "lines", so we can go as young as 12 easily) in in some settings we are saying it is ok in others - or at least opening that door.
so i think, according to the current laws, pelvic exams, DRE's, "under brief" exams, hernia checks..... whatever... inappropriate for minors to perform, especially on adults.
