From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Age of Consent
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:13:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug18.153613.17858@cs.brown.edu> pcm@cs.brown.edu (Peter C. McCluskey) writes:
>In article <6#0msab.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>|> 	And who is to decide what is coercion? 
>|> 
>|> 	Is it coercion to promise a four year old some candy for "playing"
>|> with Uncle Miltie? Is it coercion if a child lets grandpa fondle her because
>|> she wants to please him? 
>
>If either the parents or the child say it is coercion, then I would consider
>it coercion. Do you have a better answer?
>
	Are you serious?

	Do you honestly expect a four year old to _recognize_ coercion, let
alone say that they are being coerced?

	No one in their right mind would shift such a load to a child!

	As far as the parents go,  are you saying that it is up to the
abuser to define what is abuse?

	That isn't a platform - it's a license to molest children!

>|> 
>|> 	1. It provides a 'loaded gun' for kids to use to force concessions
>|> 	   from parents who love them (" Let me do this or I'll leave!")
>|> 
>|> 	2. It would allow people to 'encourage' children to desert their
>|> 	   parents and live with them (" If you lived here WE would let
>|> 	   you . . .").
>|> 
>|> 	3. It invites abuse (" Come live with me and you can have all the 
>|> 	   toys and television you want if you just do one little thing for
>|> 	   me every day . . .").
>|> 
>|> 	4. It assumes that a small child will make mature choices as to
>|> 	   what is best for their future - including a choice of 
>|> 	   guardians and lifestyles.
>|> >
>|> 	What if that new guardian is a pimp, a neighbor with a grudge
>|> against the child's parents, or a sex offender? Are _those_ choices sane
>|> ones?
>
>I suggest that we define "guardian" to mean someone who will make
>a legally binding committment to support the child until maturity,
>i.e. finance the child's education, medical costs, etc. at levels
>comparable to what the child's parents would have. This would eliminate
>most of the undesirable people that you are concerned about.

	Ok. I'll legally commit myself to support your child until maturity
(which YOUR platform defines as the age at which the chooses to live
independently, right?). I'll finance the child's education  - to MY
educational standards (no state mandated schools, remember?). And I'll
provide for the child's medical costs (based on my religious views
concerning medicine, still acceptable, right?). NOW - may I have unlimited
sexual access to your children? May I "encourage" them to develop "business
skills" by selling themselves on the street? May I "teach" them about human
sexuality with "hands on" lessons?

	Nice platform you've got there! 

	Since there are *lots* of pedophiles with excellent economic
resources - including many who *would* legitimately provide a better
education, better medical treatment, and more secure financial support for a
child until the child reached maturity than the birth parents would be
financially capable of providing - I suppose that means that those
individuals should be awarded custody of the children and that the abuse
would be acceptable in those instances!

	How convenient for child molesters! You've reall thought this one
through!


-- 
    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)