I was watching the news and they were talking about some situation where they were issuing birth control to 11 year old students. Then the local DA said that sex under the age of 14 is illegal regardless of the age of the partner.
Who passed that law? It's not only totally ridiculous but treasonous as well. By the time I was 13 I was one of the only virgins in my school and I lived in an upper middle class neighborhood. I'm not sure if that law is specific to Maine, as I had never heard of it before, but wherever it is, I can't imagine why people aren't rioting in the streets. No just government can presume to inhibit the freedom of equal participants to make their own decisions. This is right up there with making prostitution illegal. I've never heard of such treasonous nonsense in the present day western civilization.
2007-10-26 08:22:59 · 11 answers · asked by thalog482 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I'm well aware what the range of the age of consent is, however the common law is that when both partners are under the age of consent then it is legal. Clearly, the passing of a law that would restrict that is an act of treason by the legislative government. My definitions were all correct, and I made no mistake in the sentiment.
I have no intention of asking about the ethics behind issuing birth control to 11 year olds, that was simply the context in which I heard about this law. A law which I believe no just government could pass.
A just government is defined by imperative moralities and not a majority. Mob rule does not determine what morality is, morality is the best balance of intelligent interests in any given circumstance.
Sexual morality is also not the issue I was asking about. Your personal sexual morality is irrelevant to justice, where only prudence and incontrivertable moralities rule. I was asking specifically about the ethics of this law under justice.
2007-10-26 10:07:46 · update #1
You are a complete idiot. I don't even know what to say to someone with your intelligence level.
2007-10-26 09:06:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Every state has passed that (or a similar) law many years ago. In some states the age of consent as it is called is 18.
The age of consent laws are designed to protect children that are too young to make an informed decision concerning sex. I am sure anyone that has enough intelligence to tie his own shoe can understand that it should be against the law to have a sexual relationship with a baby. As such a line had to be drawn that says that a person under some age can not consent to sex.
While you ponder that thought, think about this: Once a person can consent to sexual relations, they can consent with anyone. While you may or may not see why to 13 year olds having sex is stupid, I am sure it would bother you if a 55 year old man was having sex with a 13 year old girl. This normally trips the ichy meter for most people.
Many states do not have a total exemption if both partners are under the age of consent. These helps keep horney 13 year old away from 6 year olds.
You apparently have NO idea what treason means so I'll provide a definition for you so you can stop looking ignorant:
1. The crime of betraying one’s government.
"Formerly, the punishment for high treason was of a most barbarous character…. Women were burnt. A male traitor was dragged or drawn to the place of execution and hanged; but while still alive, he was cut down and disembowelled. His head was then severed from his body which was quartered. The head and quarters, which were at the Kings disposal, were usually exposed in some conspicuous place—the Temple Bar being a favourite spot—after being boiled in salt to prevent putrification and in cumin seed to prevent birds feasting on them."
1952: James Avery Joyce: Justice At Work: (this edition Pan 1957) Page 105.
2. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
2007-10-26 08:32:36 · answer #2 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
All laws are passed to protect both people and civilization alike. Some laws are ancient, and some are relatively modern. The aim of these laws is the same, however old or new!
At one time if a woman of any age had been sexually promiscuous, especially when pregnancy was the result, they would be sent away, either to a relative with some kind of long lasting 'illness', like scarlet fever, to 'rest and recover'. They would have their baby as though it was a dirty secret, then sent back to their family and the baby would be either taken on by a different family member pretending to be 'mother', or it was adopted out!
The more unfortunate ones were put in mental institutions for the rest of their lives and their babies taken straight from them to be adopted!
Nowadays people are a lot more understanding and tolerent of sex outside of marriage, but how young is too young?
In the UK, the legal age is 16, but if two people both under the age of 16 have consentual sex, the police don't prosecute.
Without this law, there wouldn't be any protection for children who are groomed, manipulated, or forced into sexual acts of which they wouldn't have participated in otherwise!
This law is about protecting the rights of children, not taking them away!
2007-10-26 09:08:26 · answer #3 · answered by Watsit 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If at 13 you were the only virgin at your school-
i just have to tell you, you went to school with some seriously immoral people with some self esteem issues.
And apparently your classmates had some pretty sorry parenting- I mean where the heck was Mommy and Daddy when the kids were having sex?
Why the heck do people who aren't even shaving trying to have sex?
You do know sex makes babies?
If you aren't old enough to work to support a baby- you had better keep your legs together tightly.
Abstinence is free and guess what - no one will call you a tramp if you practice it-
You don't have to worry about your b/f going and telling his friends about how you perform - if you don't put out!@!!
Stop and Think- these choices determine what the rest of your life is going to be.
Children don't need to have sex and prescription medication (such as birth control) sure as heck doesn't need to be handed out by people with out the complete medical history of the patient and without parental approval. PERIOD
2007-10-26 08:33:32 · answer #4 · answered by tnfarmgirl 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't know why you would think a law like that is ridiculous. The thought of my 9 year old having sex in a couple of years is scary as H#LL, I hope I have raised him better and he is smarter than that. I was almost 19 before I had sex for the first time and I wish I had waited even longer. As for you being one of the only virgins in your school--You should be grateful and feel sorry for the other students who obviously had parents who didn't care or were not involved enough in their child's life. Age 14 is still a child, someone should be saying they can't have sex, it is ridiculous the amount of teenage pregnancys and spread of STDs these days.
2007-10-26 08:41:16 · answer #5 · answered by LiveLaughLove 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
just because you had sex by age 13 doesn't mean it's legal - It's pretty much a crime in all states to have sex under age 15 - and if you are caught you could do jail time and be branded a sex offender for life - and how the hell is it treasonous? You're the one guilty of treason. and and agree with th first answerer
2007-10-26 08:34:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its true. Its illegal for a individual to have sex under the age of 14 years old. This is because over the last 5 years, parents between the ages of 14-20 have increased DRAMATICALLY.
I believe the legislative government passed it.
2007-10-26 08:29:52 · answer #7 · answered by Chris Stewart 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
totally unrealistic and not enforceable,unless you lock up every teen. Jail all teens,release them when they turn 20. I'm sure that would really make us a better country. It also won't address the tweens having sex.
added. tony,did the law change the numbers or did the availability of BC change it.
some of you are equating sex between teens as pedophilia,that is the reason we can't get anywhere on issues.
part of my answer was sarcasm,but not all.
2007-10-26 08:29:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do you know the meaning of treason? I think not. You need to get a grip on reality.
2007-10-26 08:38:03 · answer #9 · answered by Otto 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
wtf are you talking about? you think eleven year olds should have sex, your comment is under ethics, and i think people with morals would rather not riot in the street because girls who dont even have boobs yet are not aloud to have birthcontrol and sex..yeaa..'the horror' Learn some morals then double check your definition of the first amendment. last time i checked it isnt freedom of pedifilia and such.
2007-10-26 08:31:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
"Just government" represents the views of the majority of its members. And what you are saying about sexual freedom is not endorsed by the OVERWHELMING majority of people in almost all, if not all, of the states.
2007-10-26 08:31:10 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋