From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:11:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake shou@midway.uchicago.edu: 

>Just a sec. Isn't your "reasonable limit" just another convenient fiction?
>I mean isn't it socially determined?  Isn't any restriction you impose
>just an arbitrary limitation of some people's right to do what they want with
>their own body?  And anyway, how _about_ the right of a 13 year old to have
>an abortion against their parents wishes?  You didn't quite get to that. 

	In one sense such limitations ARE socially determined. But in
another sense they are not.

	No limitation is justified unless it can be demonstrated that the
limitation is unavoidable, that it offeres specific protections to
individuals, or that the limitation is offset by a specific benefit. In the
case of a minor these principles are ALL applicable.

	Unavoidability: Given that at SOME age a minor may be considered to
be incapable of giving informed consent to sexual relations (certainly it
would be unreasonable to assume that a 2 year old was capable of giving
informed consent), the provision of a minimum age is unavoidable. All that
remains is to set that age - a process which DOES prove arbitrary since some
13 year olds are undenyably more mature than some 18 year olds. Despite
this, however, the arbitrary nature of the age itself (determined in part by
the _average_ age at which an individual may be considered mature and in
part by the average age at which an individual may reasonably be presumed
capable of participating in sexual relations of any nature with a mature
adult w/o physical injury (in parts of Europe the age of consent is far
lower than it is in the US).

	Specific Protections: The protection of a minor from molestation
(given a definition of molestation as engaging in sexual relations with a
minor child) is a specific protection limited as to duration (i.e., it does
not apply beyond a given age limit).

	Offset by Specific Benefit: In addition to status crimes (i.e.,
limitations such as statutory rape laws, etc.), minors are provided certain
benefits under law, among which are protection from prosecution under adult
statutes, protection from neglect or emotional abuse, guaranteed free
education, protection from abandonment, etc. NONE of which are benefits
guaranteed to the adult population as a whole. The greatest problem, of
course, is that the age limits for the provision of the benefits does not
coincide with the age limits for the limitations - but this discrepancy does
not negate the benefit.

	RE: The rights of the 13 year old girl you allude to. Here, also, no
descrepancy exists. Statutory rape laws do NOT apply to the minor, only to
the adult concerned. Thus it is NOT illegal for the 13 year old to
participate in intercourse with a 30 year old man - it IS however illegal
for him to participate in intercourse with her!

	Since no conflict exists in this respect, my position remains
internally consistent.

>How then does this jibe with your allowal of statutory rape laws?  They
>could easily be seen as some sort of "convenient fiction" used to dictate
>morality. 

	On the contrary, they offer protection to a segment of the
population deemed in need of protection  -  only for a LIMITED time. To be
equated to incest laws, you would have to demonstrate that statutory rape
laws applied to an individual THROUGHOUT their life, not only for a limited
time. I have NEVER argued against incest laws which dealt with relations
between a parent (for example) and a MINOR child. Only those which prohibit
behavior between two consenting ADULTS!


>I whole heartedly agree with your last point here.  But my point is
>that when you talk about "viability" and "limiting abortion" you are
>moving toward an area the boundaries of which are fairly unclear.  We
>can really only probably reach an approximate understanding of "viability"
>--most likely only an arbitrary one, and the "limits" you suggest for
>abortion will again be socially dictated.  I can see that you are 
>coming from what seems to be an anarchistic position (no slam intended),
>but you also seem to want to have things both ways--no interference, but
>then again, maybe a little here and there.

	In some ways my views ARE anarchistic - and in other ways they are
closer to the Libertarian position. I simply believe that every adult (and I
don't necessarily agree that 18 is the minimum age for maturity) has the
absolute right to perform any act which does NOT involve any non consenting
individual (defining children as non-consenting). Whether that act is to
engage in intercourse, have an abortion, use drug (including tobacco and
alcohol), or commit suicide is irrelelevant.

	Before you ask, btw, I define a child as an individual who HAS BEEN
BORN. I am willing to make concessions for a fetus which has reached
viability (according to current medical definition, not speculation), but
NOT for a fetus whose neural development is somewhere between that of a fish
and plankton! The concept that the partial development of neural matter
defines humanity, and thus legitimizes legal protection, is as absurd as the
arguments that the baby "has a soul." The first is a legal fiction easily
disputed by medical evidence, the second is a religious argument that has no
relevance to law or human behavior. Indeed, those who DO adhere to a
Christian perspective should FAVOR abortion, since according to their
religion an aborted baby would be without sin and therefore would
immediately be accepted into heaven - a goal they all claim to seek for
themselves!

>
>What is this supposed to mean?  Are you offended by those who disagree
>with you?

	Not in the slightest. But those who condescend to "permit" people to
do things which they have the right to do in the first place, and which they
have no right to limit, DO give me a pain.

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)