Age of Consent Policies

Rejoinder #1 "It says right there that it is due to more abstinence. However, I will concede that it doesn't cite age of consent laws as the reason for that. " Then we can render your reference to teenage pregnancy as irrelevant since it does not inform the effect of which you speak. "None of those limitations pertain, Particularly, To this argument. It states that adolescents are generally reliable reporters of information as well as that the sample size is adequate. " It pertains to the integrity of your reference, Which was rendered irrelevant. Your reference clearly stated limitations in under reporting sexual activity and over reporting contraception use, As well as the capacity to measure biological fecundity (fertility. ) However, Since you've failed to demonstrate how this informs age of consent policies, It's extraneous information. "I'm failing to see how this relates to the subject at hand. " Had you quoted the statement afterwards, You'd see the relation. Let's try this again: "In addition, When doing a cross-country analysis, Switzerland had the lowest rates among Western countries in teenage pregnancy, Yet Switzerland's age of consent is at 16. (2) And while the United States has an age of consent as high as 18 years old, Most states have an age of consent at 16. " So if most states in the United States have an age of consent at 16, And Switzerland's age of consent is at 16, then what relation does the age of consent have to teenage pregnancy when the United States has among the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the West, And Switzerland has the lowest? "That was not the argument. " I'm relating the proposition to the subject. "Having a criminal justice system that imposes sanctions no doubt does deter criminal conduct" We're not discussing the general impact of government sanctions. We are discussing age of consent policies. And due to Romeo and Juliet Laws, Charges against minors are usually not filed if sexual intercourse between is consensual (1. ) "The point is that age of consent policies are meant to decrease effects such as these. " But you have made no such demonstration. You even conceded that the report you cited doesn't even make reference to age of consent policies as a factor. You have provided no evidence that age of consent policies influence teenage pregnancy rates. "What does this have to do with age of consent? " You've proposed effects which are clearly exogenous of adolescence. So when you state that children of teenage mothers "are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed as a young adult" it's more to do with Child Labor and Minimum Wage policies than it does with their being teenagers. (Once again, Look at my reference. ) "All of those effects would be raised in the absence of age of consent laws. You've provided neither sufficient rationalizations nor proof which informs this effect. "All of those effects would be raised in the absence of age of consent laws. " You've made no such demonstration of this effect. "You misunderstood what I said. I was saying that the persistence of these laws and the reasoning behind them are the reasons that I mentioned. This has nothing to do with what age of consent is legally defined as. Nothing you've stated thus far informs a de facto application of age of consent policies. You listed a bunch of effects without so much as substantiating their relationship to age of consent policies. You argued no position which contradicts or counterargues the de jure description of age of consent. "Having a criminal justice system that imposes sanctions no doubt does deter criminal conduct. . . . The point of the age of consent laws is to deter the behaviors that I have mentioned above. " Once again, We are not discussing the general impact of government sanctions. We have discussed and are discussing Age of Consent Policies. And you have not shown how age of consent policies deter any of the effects of which you speak. Closing Arguments 1. Age of consent policies and their application have been shown to be not only illogical but also counterintuitive. The legal description of age of consent presumes tort or criminal activity with minors whom the government deems incapable of consent. However due to Romeo and Juliet policies, Minors are rarely prosecuted nor are their parents held criminally liable for the sexual activity of their children. It is only when one partner is above the age of consent and the other below it is the "age of consent" applied. In other words, When minors engage in sexual activity with each other, Incapacity to consent is recognized but not applied; when minors engage in sexual activity with adults, Incapacity to consent is recognized and applied. 2. Ceretis Parabus, The contact, The mechanics, And sensations are identical, Whether it be an adolescent or an adult. "Predation" is presumed to manifest in sexual relationships minors have with adults because of an undue position of influence an adult allegedly has. This however neglects that power dynamics can be interesectional--i. E. Differences in personality, Appearance, Ethnicity, Weight, Height, Social status, Income, Etc. Age of consent policies also fail to make explicit the nonsexual benefits adults gain in pursuing sexual relationship with minors. 3. The age of consent also contradicts its recognition of bodily autonomy among minors particularly when recognizing, For example, A 14 year old girls right to have and consent to an abortion, While denying she had the very "capacity to consent" to the activity which made her pregnant to begin with. 4. Age of consent policies when extended to their logical conclusions are absurd and produce slippery slope arguments. If a minor has no capacity to consent, Then operating on that same logic, Said minor cannot withhold assent or dissent. This would make it impossible for an adult to rape a minor, Much minors raping each other because the minor wouldn't know what's in its best interests, As described in Parens Patriae, Or its worst interests. Finally, The age of consent is arbitrary. Humans aren't machines, Ready to go once every part has been assembled. If anything, Humans have shown the capacity of being evolving encyclopedias, Learning from their experiences and adding to their wealth of knowledge. The state arbitrates a statutory division in which a person can optimally weight cost and benefit, But no such age exists. At any age a person is capable of both good and bad decisions. It's one thing to observes the development of one's life and categorize it into stages (infancy, Childhood, Adolescence, Adulthood); it's another to legislate and coerce these divisions. Thank you to my opponent. And thanks to the onlooking readers. Vote well.