"Good" decision making based solely on age

[Delta4Embassy]

As often cited in the age of consent discussions, younger people by virtue of being younger make poorer decisions because their brains haven't finished physically developing. This is a half-truth. The half that's true is their brains haven't finished developing until their mid 20s. That by virtue of having incomplete brains, that alone means they'll make bad decisions is still being studied, and nothing's conclusively demonstrated that it alone amounts to being unable to make good decisions. Perhaps it will eventually, but it hasn't yet.

This particular arguement has major problems. Not the least of which is if a individual is forbidden from doing something like legally consenting to sex, why allow them to drive a car? Or walk home from school negotiating various busy streets, crossing at crosswalks, etc.? Aren't those activities a lot more brain/good decision making-dependent than consenting to something mundane like having sex?

What about the mentally impaired? They may have impaired brain functioning their entire lives. Are they then forbidden from having sex? And if the brain development thing is going to be the basis for ages for legally consenting to sex, why aren't those ages in the mid 20s? If the entire arguement is below 25 say you're not making sound decisions because your brain is incomplete, then logicly the aoc should be 25 or so. What about joining the military? I enlisted at 17 yet back home in California as I was, I wasn't able to consent to sex. I'm 'developed enough' to join the military, and protect my country, but can't have sex with my countrymen? What the hell am I protecting them for then? If they aren't, then your entire arguement just got blown apart by you yourself.

What about a visitor from another country? Say their country has a lower age of consent, better sex ed in school, and is everything we'd like to see here in the US. Are they instantly incapable of making good decisions by virtue of being here instead of back home where they've been having sex for some time? Not everyone matures at the same rate. Not everyone is raised with the same values. Yet in making a law you're saying this is to apply to everyone regardless. So what's the logic you use?

Without going into a broader AoC discussion (again) I'm going to limit this one to the 'brain development' arguement. If you want a broader discussion we'll start one.

 

[xeinenth]

Evolutionary motivations supersede biological preparedness... So pubescent youthlings have greater urge to enter into coitus at earlier ages when raised in more primitive surroundings that don't place as strong of a reward upon intellectual reasoning. The smarter species lengthens longer life likelihood and gives better chance to carry down gained knowledge over time. Yet, this is a slow and costly mode of action and thus a discrepancy deviation will not be desireably disposed to these changes. And since the learning curve can be quite high many genes may be sifted out and not make it past the next gen. So most people don't need to divert entire asset banks to the reproductive progression and can societally contribute in other ways that often have more impact. God help us to follow your ways and be loyal toward you lest our flesh falls into sin and we decay away without end. All the best and amen.

 

[Iron Head]

As often cited in the age of consent discussions, younger people by virtue of being younger make poorer decisions because their brains haven't finished physically developing. This is a half-truth. The half that's true is their brains haven't finished developing until their mid 20s. That by virtue of having incomplete brains, that alone means they'll make bad decisions is still being studied, and nothing's conclusively demonstrated that it alone amounts to being unable to make good decisions. Perhaps it will eventually, but it hasn't yet.

This particular arguement has major problems. Not the least of which is if a individual is forbidden from doing something like legally consenting to sex, why allow them to drive a car? Or walk home from school negotiating various busy streets, crossing at crosswalks, etc.? Aren't those activities a lot more brain/good decision making-dependent than consenting to something mundane like having sex?

What about the mentally impaired? They may have impaired brain functioning their entire lives. Are they then forbidden from having sex? And if the brain development thing is going to be the basis for ages for legally consenting to sex, why aren't those ages in the mid 20s? If the entire arguement is below 25 say you're not making sound decisions because your brain is incomplete, then logicly the aoc should be 25 or so. What about joining the military? I enlisted at 17 yet back home in California as I was, I wasn't able to consent to sex. I'm 'developed enough' to join the military, and protect my country, but can't have sex with my countrymen? What the hell am I protecting them for then? If they aren't, then your entire arguement just got blown apart by you yourself.

What about a visitor from another country? Say their country has a lower age of consent, better sex ed in school, and is everything we'd like to see here in the US. Are they instantly incapable of making good decisions by virtue of being here instead of back home where they've been having sex for some time? Not everyone matures at the same rate. Not everyone is raised with the same values. Yet in making a law you're saying this is to apply to everyone regardless. So what's the logic you use?

Without going into a broader AoC discussion (again) I'm going to limit this one to the 'brain development' arguement. If you want a broader discussion we'll start one.

Clearly the op is a mea culpa.

 

[Moonglow]

If only we had a reset button...