Quote Originally Posted by rachel06 View Post
Thir, I always enjoy reading your posts because sometimes your intuitions are very different from mine and they are thought-provoking. I happen to agree with you that, in general, people own themselves and that they should be able to treat their property as they wish. However, I think that our intuitions place some bounds on that, as does our legal system. People who are insane are not able to, for example, enter contracts, dispose of their property, or make decisions regarding their care. Other people who are under a legal disability are treated similarly. Children, for example, generally can't engage in the activities I listed.

It seems to me that either you think it is a good idea to protect some people from themselves, or you don't. If you really don't believe that, then I would like you to justify prohibiting pedophilia. After all, lots of that special touching can feel really good, so why not let a child consent to it? But once you agree that SOME people are simply "disabled" - by age, or some kind of illness, or a psychological condition - from being able to make certain decisions for themselves, including the right to make decisions regarding their physical property, their bodies, then the questions is, who falls into that category?

I'm very comfortable saying, kids do. I don't need to interview each one to see where they fall on some decision-making spectrum; they just don't get to consent to sex. Or to lots of other things involving their bodies or their property. And insane people. Once you know that someone is insane, then they just can't make those decisions. So who's insane? Again, I'm confortable making the blanket judgment that physically-healthy people who want to "consent" to stuff are just nuts and can't consent to anything. You might disagree, and want to make a case-by-case determination; but unless you really believe that ANYONE, no matter what their condition, owns and can dispose of themselves in any way they like, I think you will need to agree that at least some people just aren't in a position to agreed to be snuffed.
I really hope this wasn't meant to be as grossly insulting as it sounds. Your lengthy defence of the age of consent appears to imply that thir needs to be convinced that children should be protected - and it's probably just as well that she's away from the list for a few days, because she will be both horrified and spitting fire when she sees it. Did you really mean to imply that?

I'm used to guilt-by-association from the worst end of the Religious Right: if you support gay marriage you must be in favour of underage marriage, if you support abortion you must approve of infanticide. But this is the first time I was ever told that if I support the right to suicide I must approve of child abuse.

I ask again, did you really mean to say that? Because I hate to find I've torn into someone for something they didn't mean, so I want to be quite sure first.