Handmaiden07, on Nov 12 2004, 06:32 PM, said:
Ok.The chlorine is in that water for a reason. You wear shower shoes in a public shower for a reason. You don't put your mouth on the fountain for a reason, etc. All safeguards, and yet people still catch diseases in these ways. Occasionally...not often but it happens. Like pregnancy or STD transferal.
Morals? As an objectivist, my claim to morals is what is pleasurable and exalts the human being is good...what holds us back without real reason is bad. Besides, I refuse to address the moral implications of AoC in a nation with over a billion dollars made per year in the sex industry. And that's the legal stuff. AoC is an antiquated idea stemming from the idea that children cannot make decisions about their own bodies until they're properly educated...then we fight over what to teach them. Jocelyn Elders got fired for teaching masturbation. Masturbation...the only absolutely safe form of sexual expression there is. In truth, is America ready to lower the AoC? Hell no. But doing it might bring on a generation that's not afraid of the subject.
Let's play another scenario: 15 year old healthy boy and...oh...a 35 year old woman. Both want to have sex with each other. The woman has had a hysterectomy...so no babies. Neither have STDs. IF they want to have sex, should they? The boy just wants to get laid. The woman likes young boys. There's not going to be physical ramifications, and any psychological ones will be the boy bragging to his friends he laid a grown woman. What's to stop them? A law saying he has to wait a year (or whatever based upon state laws)?
In the scenario(s) you mentioned: in each case, why not? You're automatically assuming faulty thinking, I think, simply because of age. Why not be positive and assume they can make it?
Then would it not be better to be educated by someone older? Other cultures have done it and gotten away with it, until the good ol' White man came in and told them they were sinful...and brought those STDs too, btw.
If I follow your thinking, you're essentially saying "No we shouldn't do this because of potential problems." Ok, when has that ever stopped America? Our motto in human rights has always been "Full Speed Ahead! And damn the consequences!" We freed the blacks and gave them the vote despite the fact that few blacks were educated enough to even remotely make an intelligent choice at the polls (a fact the Republican party took full advantage of). If we follow your thinking:
Everyone should be able to vote: no can't do that, because lot of people can't make reasonable choices at the polls due to lack of education.
Everyone should be able to own property: no, the financial conditions of many families could cost them that home or preclude many from ever owning, therefore it's not fair
Everyone should have freedom of speech: no, then that would include those who are hell bent on destroying our way of life, like Nazis and Communists.
You have to weigh the pros and cons, and personal freedom is always a big pro with me.
Edited by Rockhound, 12 November 2004 - 10:26 PM.