| | I wrote, "...of all the defamations that he is guilty of, perhaps the worst is the defamation of libertarianism - associating it with the idea that children have the same rights as adults and the capacity to make the same decisions as adults. Peron is not alone in this view, by the way. It is more common among libertarians than you might think." As evidence that this view is common among libertarians, I should have noted the following position statement from the Libertarian Party Platform (of 1984): "We oppose all legally created or sanctioned discrimination against (or in favor of) children, just as we oppose government discrimination directed at any other artificially defined subcategory of human beings."
So what do the libertarians who wrote that statement have in mind? Evidently the following: "If a seven-year-old nods assent when asked whether he wants to engage in sex with an adult, that is his 'right." If he wishes to drink liquor, one has a 'right' to give it to him. If he wants to leave home and live with some strangers he has just met, he has a perfect 'right' to do so. If he decides he wants to use heroin, buy a gun, drive a car, or fly a plane, neither he nor anyone willing to accommodate him should be stopped by law." (P. Schwartz, "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty," in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, p. 324) Accordingly, there should be no discrimination between children and adults.
RCR reponds, "After checking in on my last post, I feel obligated to enter a brief response to this statement by Bill Dwyer, since it is at the very heart of this "discussion", (which, depressingly, has happened already some time ago, in great length on A2 and SOLO)...
"As was pointed out to Bill before (on A2) using the word 'children' in this context is next-to-meaningless, without proper qualifications."
I meant it in the sense of all non-adults.
"It is most appropriate to ask (in relation to Bill's assertion), what is a child, and at what age is it reasonable to believe that the individual has a reasonable amount of control over his or her self-faculties, in order to make a reasonable judgement call with regard to sexual relationships? The history of 'age of consent' laws is varied and quite interesting, and it is something that really ought to be considered when discussing such topics. What is reasonable? 10? 12? 14? 16? 18? 20? Or maybe 11? 13? 15? 17? 19?
"I happen to believe that most 14 years olds, for example, are more than qualified--from a legal perspective--to make rational decisions about sexual relationships (as well as huge variety of other things and circumstances) and ought to, in general, be afforded the same rights and considerations as any 18 year old. And further, I believe that the "age of consent" ought to be lowered to around this age (in order to be a rational law)."
In view of the latest research, there may be reason to question this. The frontal lobe of the human brain does not fully mature until young adulthood. UCLA researchers compared MRI scans of young adults, 23-30, with those of teens, 12-16. They looked for signs of myelin, which would imply more mature, efficient connections, within gray matter. Areas of the frontal lobe showed the largest differences between young adults and teens. The increased myelination in the adult frontal cortex relates to the maturation of cognitive processing and other "executive" functions. Another series of MRI studies has shown that teens process emotions differently than adults. Using functional MRI, a team at Harvard‘s McLean Hospital scanned subjects‘ brain activity while they identified emotions on pictures of faces displayed on a computer screen. Young teens, who characteristically perform poorly on the task, activated the amygdala, a brain center that mediates fear and other "gut" reactions, more than the frontal lobe. As teens grow older, their brain activity during this task tends to shift to the frontal lobe, leading to more reasoned perceptions and improved performance.
"I know many of my peers (male and female) who engaged in sexual relationships at this age [14], (and earlier) and are certainly none-the-worse for the experiences. This is not to say that there weren't any 'difficulties', but when in life aren't there?"
I don't think it's any coincidence that the number of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent households has increased significantly in the last 40 years. Some will attribute this to changes in the welfare laws, but I think a good case could be made that the trend is also due to a change in cultural norms in which teenagers are increasingly viewed as mature enough to engage in sexual relations. Of course, a sexual encounter between two teenagers is not the end of the world.
A more serious problem is predatory sex between an adult and a young teen or pre-teen. Sexual relationships can involve serious emotional attachments and should not be treated lightly. Young teenagers do not have the mental or emotional maturity to handle sexual relationships, especially ones involving an adult, in which there is the additional problem of manipulation and exploitation. These children are still growing and maturing and should not be regarded as having the same rights (and responsibilities) as adults.
"This entire 'discussion' (if it is too be more than a smear campaign) is really an age-of-consent debate, which in all likelihood can not really be objectively settled (past a certain, foggy point), since all human beings ARE INDIVIDUALS whose rational, emotional, and sexual faculties develop at wildly different rates."
That doesn't mean that there are no general principles which should govern what teenagers should be allowed to do. Yes, people are individuals, but that should not obliterate the obvious mental and physical distinctions between children and adults - between fully mature human beings and those who have yet to reach maturity.
"In my humble opinion, throwing about loaded terms like 'children', in this context, without proper age qualifications, quickly reduces a valid discussion into emotive nonsense."
I don't think it's emotive nonsense to recognize that children and adults have different capacities for self-control and rational decision making and that these differences should be taken into account in deciding what rights and responsibilities are appropriate.
- Bill
|
|