Rebuttal
Before I adress your points, I would like to explain why I support a universal age of consent. There are two reasons:
- Minors are not mature enough mentally to have sex.
- Minors are not mature enough physically and mentally to have children.
Why are minors prohibited from smoking, drinking, and gambling? Because they are not mature enough to do those things.
An adult understands the consequences and so he can consent. A child,
on the other hand, doesn't. Sex is similar to smoking, drinking, and
gambling: it is an activity for adults.
How "mature" does one have to be in order to have sex? How "mature" does one have to be in order to behave one's body? You're merely asserting that they aren't mature enough, regardless of your analogies to smoking, gambling, and drinking, which can be argued many adults aren't "mature" enough to handle (otherwise, they wouldn't smoke, drink, or gamble at all, in my opinion.) Minors are often taught by the adults in their lives about the consequences of their actions almost all the time. Why are minors in particular incapable of understanding the consequences of sex?
Second, the use of the word, "mature," automatically and arbitrarily dismisses any capacity for a minor to be considered competent because minors by the definition of the term mature are less mature than adults. The inclusion of the term is an extension of the arbitrary age-based division. Explain what role "maturity" plays in one's capacity to provide valid consent when it concerns sex.
Having a child at an early age can be both physically and mentally
damaging to a girl. Someone who hasn't grown up herself yet cannot take
care of another individual. It's also very damaging for the baby to grow
up with an underage mother.
Please substantiate these assertions. We know historically girls would have children often after reaching puberty. In third world countries, girls have children at young ages. Were there any signs or records of mental damage then? Child Labor Laws have stifled any chances of minors having the capacity to meet their financial obligations, and minimum wage laws have done nothing more to help, but instead, exacerbated teenage unemployment. Furthermore,
the 1998 Rind report challenged and casted doubt on the public perception of necessary psychological damage to minors when they engaged sexual relationships with adults, particularly in the absence of force. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on
college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with "child sexual abuse" were, on
average, slightly less well adjusted than the controls.
However, this poorer
adjustment could not be attributed to child sexual abuse because family environment
was consistently confounded with child sexual abuse. Family environment explained considerably
more adjustment variance than child sexual abuse, and CSA-adjustment relations
generally became insignificant when studies controlled for family environment.
Self-reported reactions to and effects from child sexual abuse indicated that negative
effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men
reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were
completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs
about child sexual abuse in the general population were not supported.
It is true that when two minors have sex, they are seldom punished;
while if an adult has sex with a minor he will be convicted of statutory
rape. And there's a perfectly logical reason for both these things.
Minors aren't prosecuted for breaking the age of consent because they did not give consent to have sex. Minors cannot give consent.
No, you're stating that they are incapable of giving consent, not that they used discretion and withheld it. (This will be important as we go forward.) And how does the sex between two minors occur if neither is capable of providing valid consent? Are they raping each other, or does their incapacity to consent cancel each other out?
There's a reason it's called statutory rape - sex without consent is
rape. If a minor got raped, you wouldn't imprison them for breaking the
age of consent laws, would you? But when an adult has sex, they fully
understand the consequences of sex and are able to give consent. That's
why the adult goes to jail and the kid doesn't.
Sex without valid consent is the legal description of rape. And valid consent in the context of age of consent is informed by arbitrary age-based divisions. As I mentioned in the description, you can submit the legal definition of consent, but you'd have to justify its integrity, not argue Ipse Dixit. Furthermore, what are the consequences that should be understood in the sexual engagement between adult and minor, and how does awareness of those consequences establish a crime? As I stated above, wouldn't the adult's presumed capacity for appreciating the consequences make the adult a more viable sexual partner for the minor than another minor?
It is also true that minors cannot dissent. That's why they are required
by law to go to school, for example: they are not mature enough to make
a decision on that subject. But this does not mean that age of consent
laws are illogical.
It is illogical. If a minor cannot dissent, then the minor is subject to the whims of any adult regardless of his or her protests. Just because some of those adults are members of government with the privilege to write policy doesn't change a thing.
Consent and lack of dissent aren't the same thing.
One either affirms or negates. The presumption which informs valid consent is that the lack of a yes informs no. (The logic of this is quite nebulous since the converse of that statement can also be made--i.e. the lack of no informs yes.) Even if we were to operate on the former, would there be a presumptive no as it concerns minors? If they are incapable of both consent and dissent, then what is presumed in the absence of consent? I'm not suggesting that the lack of consent is dissent; I'm suggesting age of consent renders the dichotomy meaningless when it concerns minors. You're in essence characterizing them as value-less beings who cannot exercise value-based decisions as far as their bodies are concerned. So what crime would an adult be committing when he or she engages a minor in sexual activity? Violation of state prerogative? If you're arguing on behalf of state-prerogative, then you'd only be informing my point on immorality delineated in my opening argument. You're essentially consigning these minors to be state-property. And you'd have justify how consigning human beings to be the property of other beings is at all moral.
According to your logic, I could rape a sleeping woman since she
didn't dissent to me having sex with her. But your logic is flawed and
that's why I would be going to jail.
Since you referred to a sleeping "woman" and not a sleeping "girl," I can assume that you're referring to an adult presumed capable of making value-based decisions as it concerns her body. The difference here is that one is not supposing that woman is incapable of consent; one is supposing a no, in the absence of yes, because there was no decision made due to her being unconscious. With minors, one is supposing their incapacity by reason of being, regardless of the circumstances. So according, not to my logic, but the rationale of age of consent, it would be possible to rape a sleeping woman, but it would be impossible to rape a sleeping girl, because even if she were conscious, her values as it concerns her body wouldn't matter.
It doesn't matter whether the minor receives pleasure from sex or not.
So then what does matter?
A minor cannot consent.
Another ipse dixit statement. Please elaborate.
A minor also receives pleasure from drinking alchohol and smoking, so should we let children drink and smoke?
Another ipse dixit statement compounded by arguments to common practice. You're not even attempting to justify your statements. You're informing only that which the state already does.
A minor does not have the rights that an adult has.
Correction: minors do not have the privileges an adult has. (And adults do not have the privileges a minor has.) That is not to be confused with rights which are supposed to reflect a moral economy. The state was intended to protect rights, not create, dictate, or undermine them. Many of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights which the state alleges it sustains as "inalienable" are derived from the natural rights philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment.
In the case of abortion, the parents can decide to abort the child
because having a child would only hurt the minor more.
A 14 year-old girl does not need her parents consent to have an abortion. She can appeal to a judge on her own behalf. That's the reason I used a proverbial 14 year-old girl as my example.
Not having sex
doesn't hurt the minor.
And you haven't substantiated how having sex does hurt the minor. But there's still time.
Therefore, your three arguments are invalid.
You're going to have to provide much more substance to your counterarguments to render my arguments invalid.
On to the next round.
If we were to extend your rationale to its logical conclusion (i.e. beings who aren't conceived have rights) then children would be able to levy post facto legal disputes against their parents for bad skin, or bad hair, or poor vision, genetic defects, etc. in order to express their claims or "rights."
"Anyone with a curable STI should get annually fined until they get treatment for it/them."
And to whom is this fine owed? Who else has a claim to the parents' good health other than whom you allege--i.e. the unborn child? How would the unborn child collect it? How much do we take? Aren't you just pressing your own alleged claims and/or rights and funneling them through the assumption of the unborn child's proxy?
"Cotius is not the best way to enjoy one's partner from an objective standpoint because of it's dangers."
This depends on the context. If one's sexual habits are casual, then yes, there's a risk in contracting STI's. However, if my partner and I have no STI's and remain in an exclusive sexual relationship, then regardless of how many times we have sex, the "danger" is incidentally the same. Now, if we're characterizing pregnancy as a danger, then contraception is quite the effective remedy. And again, from personal experience, even trying "other forms," coitus is the best way to enjoy one's partner.
"If it infringes on the rights of others, like future children by giving them STIs, then they can just get the STIs treated. I don't think abortion should be an allowed option but that's a different topic."
"Future" children don't have rights. They've yet to be born; they've yet to have being. They have no more so say in their own creation than everyone else. Which rights can they exercise before they're conceived?
"Not all parties will inform the other of STIs that are had."
I know. That doesn't change, however, that one has the responsibility to be an agent in one's self-preservation. Hence, one "demands" that screening be conducted before engaging in coitus.
"Personal responsibility isn't always achieved..."
Personal responsibility isn't something achieved. It's innate; it's cultivated through one's experiences.
"...since some couples don't care about spreading STIs."
Which couples are those? And if they don't care about spreading STI's, then they warrant the consequences of their actions.
"Why should the kids from this arrangement suffer for the responsibility of the parents?"
They aren't kids; they are neither conceived nor born. We are speaking to prospect, not fact. For better or worse, children are the beneficiaries of their parents' positive and negative aspects. Since they aren't self-sufficient, and the zygote/embryo/fetus requires its mother's labor to gestate, it doesn't get to get to dictate its mother's participation--even her curing any STI's--because they zygote/embryo/fetus doesn't gestate itself. It doesn't provide the genetic material in its own conception. The womb belongs to its mother; the ovum and sperm belong to its mother and father, respectively. What claim does the zygote/embryo/fetus have?
I'm not at all advocating for spreading STI's, or infecting unborn children with them, but it is a terrible yet inevitable consequence of progenation.
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Pro concedes
Am I making sense?
"The parameters should be decided mutually by the involved parties--i.e. those who engage sexual activity."
If it infringes on the rights of others, like future children by giving them STIs, then they can just get the STIs treated. I don't think abortion should be an allowed option but that's a different topic.
"Of course, preferably, the parties involved would do the other party the courtesy of informing them of any complications--i.e. STI's, etc.--but it's the still the personal responsibility of anyone who engages sexual activity to demand that screening for STI's be conducted before engagement--especially women."
Not all parties will inform the other of STIs that are had. Personal responsibility isn't always achieved since some couples don't care about spreading STIs. Why should the kids from this arrangement suffer for the responsibility of the parents? It's better if STIs were treated before marriage and starting a family. Anyone with a curable STI should get annually fined until they get treatment for it/them.
Cotius is not the best way to enjoy one's partner from an objective standpoint because of it's dangers. It's like resorting to cannibalism when there are other forms of meat available for human consumption. If the other forms are available, why select what's objectively dangerous for human beings?
"Sex shouldn't be on the basis of age but should be restricted. In order to have sex, you must have you and your partner be treated of all STDs and STIs. In addition, either you must be married to your partner or use birth control precisely 100% effective. There are outer course ways to enjoy your partner without having sex."
The parameters should be decided mutually by the involved parties--i.e. those who engage sexual activity. Of course, preferably, the parties involved would do the other party the courtesy of informing them of any complications--i.e. STI's, etc.--but it's the still the personal responsibility of anyone who engages sexual activity to demand that screening for STI's be conducted before engagement--especially women. I agree that contraception ought to be used effectively to prevent STI's and unplanned pregnancies, though abortion would still be an option. Furthermore, while there are other ways to enjoy one's partner, in my experience at least, coitus is the best way. The state really has no prerogative other one it imposes itself to interfere in the sex lives of others particularly and especially in the absence of duress.
Sex shouldn't be on the basis of age but should be restricted. In order to have sex, you must have you and your partner be treated of all STDs and STIs. In addition, either you must be married to your partner or use birth control precisely 100% effective. There are outer course ways to enjoy your partner without having sex.
The format of our debate was delineated in the description:
Round One: Opening Arguments
Round Two: Rebuttals
Round Three: Rejoinders
Round Four: (Double) Rejoinders
Round Five: Closing Arguments
Not to mention, if there was something with which you were unsure, you could've waited for a response. After all, three days are allowed between our submissions. You're relatively new, so I'll chalk it up to that.
Just to confirm before I post my argument. Should I include rebuttals or not?
You've submitted a rather sophistic argument. I never once referred to "the" age of consent. Take a look at the subject title, "Age of Consent Policies." Plural. And I presumed that the concept of "age of consent" was recognizable without explicit definition, but if you need it defined, I don't mind providing you a definition.
EDIT: I've added the definitions. Is it more definitive now?
Still too woolly.
You argue against "the" age of consent and refer to "the" standard, but not the standard. The use of the word "legal" only adds to the ambiguity of the proposition.
You're still not making clear what you actually want to debate. As such an opponent could only initiate a discussion rather than a definitive argument.
Just commenting out into the blue: If people aren't careful, the age of consent could be raised to 25
A debate between the two of you would be very entertaining! You’re both probably the best debaters that I’ve seen.
My position is one against age of consent policies. Given the resolution, my position naturally supposes that age of consent policies are both logically inconsistent and immoral. Further elaboration will be submitted during the debate.
Could you elaborate on your position?
Will consider it. Working on a case now. Hopefully, I am not busy so it doesn't go to waste.
This is simply a repost of my previous challenge, "Age of Consent." This time, there's no rating requirement. Perhaps now, a challenger will emerge.