How exactly would he be abusing the system? That’s exactly the system you set up . He doesn’t become an “adult” by reaching a particular age. He becomes an adult by choosing to gain certain rights and take on the corresponding responsibilitites. If he never chooses those rights and responsibilities, and his parents are willing to support him and therefore never attempt to force him to support himself , then what happens when he mugs someone? Do we use an arbitrary age to treat him as we would an “adult” or is he treated as we would a “child”? Or do we get rid of the child/adult distinction we currently have when it comes to criminal behavior?
Sexual consent: 14 to 18, depending on state
Driving: 16
Working: 16 (depending on state?)
Voting, contracts, tobacco, financial responsibility: 18
Certain political offices: 18
Alcohol: 21
Eligible for House of Representatives: 25
Eligible for Senate: 30
Eligible for President: 35
Indeed. To drive, you need three things: a car, insurance, and a driver’s license. The first two are not directly limited by age, but by other factors (money to buy and maintain the car, insurer’s willingness to underwrite you) which may be indirectly affected by other legal age limits. The third, however, is directly limited by age, and that’s what I would change.
Why would they have to be obtained in a certain order?
No and no.
For one thing, sex with adults isn’t any more likely to have financial consequences than sex with other minors. Indeed, most sex has no financial consequences at all; there are many well-known ways to prevent pregnancy, and I’d wager that most people who have sex are actively trying to prevent pregnancy.
The idea of requiring someone to prove they can pay for any possible consequences of sex is akin to requiring a driver to prove he can pay for any possible traffic ticket he might receive, before he’s allowed to have a license.
I’m not sure which financial consequences of drinking you’re referring to.
Please. You said you’re convinced that what I’ve said here (that rights and responsibility should be handed out together) is not what I really believe. That sounds an awful lot like GD talk for calling me a liar or worse.
Or maybe you just missed the posts on the first page of this thread, back when it was all about age of consent, where I said:
*“And I’d expect a pregnant 12 year old girl to live with the consequences of her decisions.”
“If, heaven forbid, contraception fails and a child results through a string of bad choices, I would expect the same from the young parents that I would from adult parents.”
“I believe minors would make the right choices for themselves in a situation like that, where rights and responsibilities are earned at the same time.”*
Or maybe you did see those posts and misread them, thinking I meant the exact opposite of what I said. Don’t worry, it happens to the best of us. 
Now, it is true that I didn’t have a lot of these specific details in mind when I started the thread; but I believe all the details I’ve filled in follow from my basic principles[sup]*[/sup], combined with a bit of pragmatism. Perhaps there would have been less confusion if I had started this thread with a well-composed manifesto, instead of a transplanted hijack, but oh well–that was a month ago.
- which, if you haven’t gathered, are more or less:
- Everyone matures at a different rate, therefore age is an inaccurate indicator of maturity or ability.
- An inaccurate indicator is an inappropriate basis for discrimination.
- Rights and responsibility go hand in hand.
That last one sums up my opposition to trying minors as adults, regardless of how heinous their crimes may have been.
What age?
Well, whenever the Great Scientific Minds of Today get around to proving that everyone is able to support themselves by age X, then I suppose the age could be X. Until then, I’ll avoid setting an arbitrary age. Sorry.
I will, however, extend to you one olive branch. Instead of both parents having to agree on terminating support, Kubrickstan will allow the dissenting party to petition a court to resolve the disagreement for them. The judge shall hear the testimony of both parents, the minor, the psychologist, etc. as before, and he will have the option of terminating the support of one or both parents, leaving it as is, or changing the terms of required support. Each party has one appeal per petition, and only one petition may be filed per year.
When his parents are continuing to support him in order to let him get away with breaking the law, that’s abusing the system, just like a gang using kids to transport drugs. In a situation like that, the parents should be held partially accountable for the crimes.
I would also consider allowing juvenile court judges to terminate parental support as part of a sentence, using a similar standard of evidence as though the parents had petitioned, if the minor has not obtained enough rights to qualify him for adult court at an age where most people have, and the minor’s crimes indicate a pattern or there’s evidence that the parents are profiting from the crime.
Oh yeah. That’s a lot of age restrictions. But there’s more. So many more. Restrictions on how old you must be to retire, how old you can be to join AARP, how old you can be to be eligible to join the Boy Scouts (or I should say, how young), even an age restriction to the local “young people’s” Opera Club. (I’m too old by just a few years. Bummer.) And on and on. Just curious, do you want to do away with all these restrictions as well? Not just for those who are too young, but those who are too old? Because I’d love to join that Opera Club. I think it’s a travesty that they are discriminating against me because of my age. Terribly, terribly unfair.
Personally, I could see some merit in perhaps lowering the alcohol age to 18. Frankly, I’d like to see some consistency with all these age limits (like age 18 for many of them).
And we’ve already pointed out—good luck getting insurance companies to insure anyone under age 16.
Oh please. We’re going over old ground again. It’s already been established—people don’t or won’t use these “well-known” ways to prevent pregnancy. Get with the program. It’s a real problem. Sex between minors is a big problem too, but the difficulty there is, they are both minors, so there is not one who has more “control” (as would be the case with minor/adult). But the problems are still the same; unsafe and stupid sex, unexpected pregnancy. And we’ve already gone though this, you should be familiar by now. People just won’t be responsible. But at least with two adults, they are more likely to have jobs, where children won’t.
That’s why they get insurance. How does one get “unexpected pregnancy insurance”? The point is, a child going to school, who is being supported by their parents and who has never supported themselves cannot even remotely prove that they can support an unexpected child, let alone themselves.
Behaviors that result from drinking too much. You do the math. And I’m sure I wouldn’t have too much trouble coming up with some cites showing the problems with teenaged drinking, and the sometimes disasterous consequences. Once again, do adults have trouble with drinking too? Yes, but the percentage goes down. Now that I think about it, perhaps lowering the drinking age to 18 isn’t such a good idea after all…
Believe what you want. Your own words here seem to indiciate a “disconnect” of what responsiblity is. Just saying that you “expect” a child to be responsible (when they have zero indications of being capable of responsibilty, have never had a job, etc.) is like saying that you “expect” your cat to pee in the toilet. Sure, some cats can be trained to pee in the toilet, but what are the odds?
I am reminded by the beginning of this thread, where you said that you thought “most” 11 year olds could give “informed consent” to sex. But I never have been convinced that “most” 11 year olds can hold down a fulltime job (to support a kid that may result from their “informed consent” sex) and go to school. You seemed to make some indication early in the thread that some kids can run businesses (“hundreds” are listed in a cite you gave) but where does that leave the rest of “most” of the 11 year olds that you think are capable of being responsible? You don’t want them to work and go to school. But how else will we know that they can support the consequences of their “informed consent” to sex? At least with adults, school is over with—there is no mandatory schooling for them, so they can dedicate all their time to working. But you don’t think it’s fair or right or proper to expect a kid to do the same thing. But you think that a judge could be able to discern that “most” 11 year olds could be “responsible” anyway, if there were financial consequences to their “adult” choices? I don’t think so.
And perhaps you expect cats to pee in toilets too. Color me impressed by your good intentions.
Once a year is quite enough for a kid to get a message (could be at age 14, or so, whenever the “dissenting” parent starts to kick up a fuss and wants to stop supporting the kid they didn’t want anyway) that they are living on “borrowed time” and may be cut loose any time now. Nice.
Difference is, those aren’t enshrined in law; they’re policy decisions by private groups.
While I’d like it if private organizations didn’t discriminate by age either, I wouldn’t forbid them from doing so–right to free association and all that. As long as you’re free to start your own “old people’s” opera club, the young folks are free to keep you out of theirs.
If they insure 16 year olds, why wouldn’t they insure 15 year olds?
Of course, I’ve already agreed that insurance would be expensive for them, perhaps prohibitively expensive (for all but the richest young drivers). What does that have to do with whether or not they can have driver’s licenses? I don’t recall needing to show proof of insurance when I got my license.
Your insurance covers traffic fines? Which company is that?
We don’t require people to prove they have $1000 to pay a hypothetical reckless driving ticket, because we expect them to avoid reckless driving. Nevertheless, if someone drives recklessly, he has to pay the fine, using money he has now or money he gains in the future.
We do the same today with child support: 16 year olds don’t need to prove they can afford kids in order to consent to sex (in fact, no one does). I would simply extend that to anyone qualified to consent.
Did I say they were capable of holding a full time job? No, I said they were capable of giving informed consent, i.e., they know what sex is, they know what it can lead to, and they know whether they want it. erislover explained the notion of consent pretty well.
Please, try to keep up. See my post from 04-27-2003 at 11:36 PM PDT, right here on page 4?
You said: “Why, they’d have to (shudder) work, wouldn’t they?”
And I said: “Yes, just like I said in the next paragraph you quoted. Because he accepted that responsibility along with the right to consent to sex.”
I suppose that kid’s life would be great if only his parents would keep him in their house for a few more years, huh? His parents hate him enough to want to kick him out at 14, but three hots and a cot make everything all better.
And why not 14 year olds, and 13 year olds? And 12 year olds? Frankly, I think they grit their teeth when they insuring 16 year olds. I don’t see them insuring 15 year olds unless they were obligated to, by law. Do you advocate insurance companies insuring anyone and everyone?
But you can’t legally drive without insurance.
But, if a kid wants a driver’s license that is basically useless, because they don’t have insurance and therefore can’t legally drive anyway, well, let 'em have it. That nice little card will look great in their wallet but it’ll be useless for actually…well, you know…driving.
And if you can’t cover your fine, don’t you have to go to court or end up in jail? I’ve never faced such a situation myself, but I believe that by hook or by crook, they’ll make you pay. Wanna send 12 year olds to jail when they can’t pay their traffic fines?
Some 16 year olds in some states can have sex. And 16 year olds can at least work. It’s not a stretch to believe that a higher percentage of 16 year olds can even juggle school and work. Not nice, but more of them could do it than, say, 11 year olds. And I damned well would expect them to do it, too.
AND THIS IS MY WHOLE POINT. It is not acceptable that a child be able to “consent” to something when they cannot, in the end, be responsible. They have parents (or legal guardians) who are legally responsible for them, and these people will pick up the pieces. That must be what you expect, because you don’t think they are capable of holding down a full time job, do you? Or do you “expect” (just like the hypothetical cats peeing in the toilets) that an eleven year old will all of a sudden pick up the pieces themselves? Because you “expect” them to be “responsible”, and all.
Oh, my reading comprehension is quite good, thank you. But I’ve repeated it several times: “Expecting” someone to do something doesn’t mean squat if you already concede that you doubt they are capable of the mechanics of actually doing it. (As in, holding down a fulltime job, juggling school and work, etc.)
I was thinking more of a scenario of a “sperm donor” father type. You must know what kind of person I’m talking about…the man who feels he was “trapped” into fathering a kid, because the woman had the audacity to not get an abortion, and now he’s stuck supporting a kid he doesn’t want, and certainly doesn’t want to support. (All that money “flowing from his wallet” is so terribly unfair.) So he’ll bitch and moan and make a big production each year of trying to dump his responsibility for his kid. And the kid will get the message loud and clear, and so will the mom—they may very soon be on their own, because bio-dad is chomping at the bit to stop supporting the kid he never wanted in the first place.
They aren’t obligated to insure 16 year olds, are they? Gritting their teeth or not, they still accept 16 year olds’ money.
If there’s enough demand for insurance among 15 year olds, the market will provide. All that money isn’t just going to go unclaimed.
It’ll be useful for driving, say, their parents’ cars, if their parents have them on the insurance policy. Or if the kid has a big inheritance and decides to use it to post a bond. If not, the license is still a valid photo ID, and the kid is still one step closer to driving.
Yes, because they accepted that responsibility when they got the license.
Well, as we’ve found out, you have quite a nonstandard definition of “consent”.
I expect that they’ll take precautions to avoid pregnancy, having been informed of their options by competent sex education. I expect that the ones who don’t take precautions and end up with kids will be held as responsible for supporting those kids as anyone else, job or no job, just like an ‘adult’ who may or may not be capable[sup]*[/sup] of holding a job.
Their parents (or legal guardians) will not be responsible for supporting those kids, because the responsibility for supporting kids comes with the right to consent to sex.
- Yes, I know adults are allowed to hold jobs. You agreed, though, that some adults are not actually capable of holding jobs.
You just can’t get over that “male abortion” thread, can you?
Or more likely, the 16 year olds’ parents’ money.
You don’t think there’s a limit to how low the insurance companies would go? I think there is. After all, car rentals often won’t rent to people under 25. Though I’m sure that there are plenty of under-25 folks with good money who would like to rent cars.
You’re assuming the insurance company would allow it. But what if they wouldn’t? If such laws went into effect, perhaps (well, probably) the insurance companies would have policies that would not be “friendly” to younger teenagers. No matter how good customers their parents are.
And you spin and circle around the whole issue, which is children being able to give consent, and how exactly they will, actually, be responsible. Which you claim that they can be. But they can’t, because they can’t handle working yet. But they can still, somehow, be responsible anyway. Or something.
Figuratively waving your magic wand and claiming that you’d “expect” them to be responsible doesn’t mean they will. Not explaining how they will (other than repeating that yes, oh yes! You “expect” them to be responsible) isn’t helping either.
Oh please. You have many “expectations” of things that haven’t happened, despite everyone’s best intentions. Even with sex education, the whole nine yards, it isn’t making enough of a dent. But you somehow “expect” that it suddenly will?
Ah. I understand that you “expect” it. But you also “expect” that a kid who hasn’t finished school shouldn’t have to be “expected” to work and go to school. So you “expect” a great deal, much of which contradicts itself, and which isn’t going to happen.
And who will, then, be “responsible”, if the kid won’t or can’t? (Because we mustn’t interrupt their school schedule.) The taxpayers?
Oh, I know that some adults can’t or won’t be responsible too, but at least they don’t have school to worry about (since it is unreasonable to expect even a “responsible” person to do school and work simultaneously). Also, a vastly higher percentage of adults are capable of being “responsible”, as compared to, say, 11 year olds. (Who you still think can usually be “responsible”. But of course their parents won’t be responsible for their mishaps. Just them. Somehow. But you don’t explain how “most” of them will actually pull of being “responsible”.)
There seems to be a common thread between these two topics. Your idea of “responsibility”, and what it means. Or what you think it means, and how it differs depending on the situation.
First of all, who said that’s why the parents are supporting him? Secondly, which jail does the forty year old “child” go to?
Mr2001-
it seems as though your proposal doubles the size of the court system, given the number of applications for rights you’ve proposed, as well as a review of said rights, your ‘panel’ to determine ages for some rights, and the resultant issues in criminal court alone due to the murky line during sexual relations between consenting minor with an adult. not to mention each dmv office becoming a fully staffed psychological screening station.
is this in any way a realistic proposal? are there baby steps to take? (so to speak)
i ask because most of us are pretty comfortable with a rule of law being applied insofar as age restrictions are applied. given that there is no objective criteria, do we want it all up to the judge’s discretion? i imagine that there are some judges out there who would either block or pass all petitions for adulthood by 12 year olds.
I would also like to echo yosemitebabe’s points about your ‘expectations’- your plans do not seem to take the real world into account in regards to relationships- both familial and otherwise. whether he is emancipated or no, how many families will cut off a 12 year old from support? is that a realistic expectation? or do you count on this- as doreen said, a lot of this seems like ‘have your cake and eat it too’ arguments.
child =! women =! blacks =! small adults with all adult faculties
Mr2001, I read this entire thread and think you’ve painted yourself in a corner.
Now I’m not against lowering the age of consent a few years (basing consent on the legal age of adulthood rather than biological adulthood strikes me as rigid), but the notion that there should be no age-based restrictions ignores the fact that there are important differences between children and adults. Some children may be more adult-like than other children, sure enough, but the odd exception doesn’t mean we should start thinking of children as minature adults until proven otherwise. By your logic, should we issue driver’s licenses to chimpazees if they are able to pass a driver’s test? If not, why not? If they passed the test (nevermind that a trainer spent 2 years training them on the course…meaningless detail), surely they must possess the judgement skills and hand-eye coordination to get through stressful traffic situations. So why not let them drive?
Someone else said this and it wasn’t addressed IIRC, but statutory rape doesn’t discriminate against minors; if anything, it discriminates against adults because they are the ones who will be prosecuted for their actions. Not the minors. In fact, kids can legally have sex with each other all they want, and they don’t have to apply for “legal consent” to do it. So, given this, why are you framing your arguments to make children out to be the unfairly persecuted victims of all this? They are not the ones who get in trouble; it’s the adults who do. Kids can have sex with kids without facing charges, but adults can not. So shouldn’t your argument not be about liberating children, but about liberating the adults who want to sleep with children?
And finally, I don’t understand how current laws for emancipation differ all that much from your concept of applying for adulthood status.
Sure, could be. Or maybe the Mister Two-Thousand One Endowment for Carless Teens. The insurance company won’t care; whoever wants to pay for it, their money is just as green.
I suppose it’s possible that corporations would stop liking money… but how likely is that? Why would they turn these potential customers away instead of just charging high premiums?
He shouldn’t be forced into that situation by his parents. I’ve said multiple times that he is expected to work and go to school if that’s what he has to do to live up to a responsibility he accepted.
I know you’re excited to reply to my posts, but couldn’t you take a little time to read them first?
If his parents aren’t supporting him in order to facilitate crimes, they aren’t guilty, just misled. I wouldn’t hold them responsible for the crimes, but I would still consider separating him from them, in order to try him as an adult if he offends again.
He would go to juvenile hall. To do otherwise would violate the rule that rights and responsibility come at the same time, since he has no ‘adult’ rights but is being held to an ‘adult’ standard and punished as one.
Lowering the ages and improving education would be a great start.
If kids don’t know the risks of sex, for example, it isn’t because they just can’t understand; it’s because they haven’t been taught. Sensational or biased teaching must go: abstinence-only sex education, DARE, etc. Better education would result in better choices by young people, and eliminate one of the justifications for higher age limits.
I don’t think a judge would have to handle them - there are no petitions for “adulthood”, only for specific rights. A 14 year old who wants a driver’s license simply applies at the DMV.
Guidelines for each right and an appeal process could reduce the problem of biased judges.
Yes, there are differences, but the line between children and adults is not a fixed age. There are no important differences between 18 year olds and 17 year olds, or between 17 year olds and 16 year olds.
Clearly there are important differences between 40 year olds and 5 year olds, so we know something changes at some time, but it’s far too simplistic to declare everyone older than 18 to be competent and everyone younger to be incompetent. In every case where age is used as a deciding factor, it’s merely an inaccurate placeholder for another factor that’s harder to measure.
Now, as Stonebow pointed out, children are not women, blacks, or small adults. But age is used as an inaccurate placeholder just as sex has been: it’s easy, but inaccurate, to assume that all men are strong enough to be firefighters and no women are, just as it’s easy (but inaccurate) to assume that all 18 year olds are ‘mature’ enough to do some task and no 17 year olds are. In both cases, it’s more accurate and fair to everyone involved to find another deciding factor, one that better reflects the ability to do that task.
Actually, I’ve heard of cases (in California, I think) where two minors who had sex with each other were both prosecuted. I’ll try to dig up a cite.
I agree that technically, adults are the victims of those laws. However, it’s not that much of a stretch to frame it the way I have: the effect of the law is to prevent minors from “associating” with adults (since adults don’t want to risk prosecution), while adults are free to “associate” with other adults; the minors are being prevented from doing something by their age.
The adults, of course, are also prevented from doing something by their age, and much more directly. But frankly, I’ve heard enough insinuations with the issue framed this way (“Why are you so interested in adults having sex with minors, hmm?”); I think I’d be pitted left and right if I framed it the other way.
Emancipation is all or nothing: you can’t take just the rights and responsibilities you’re ready for, and leave the rest for later. My proposal allows minors to drink (and accept the responsibilities of drinking) whether or not they’re ready to drive or vote, for example.
I’m not all that familiar with emancipation laws, actually. I’ll have to look this up, but I don’t believe emancipation applies to all rights - an emancipated 15 year old is separate from his parents, but he still can’t drive, vote, buy tobacco or alcohol, and certainly can’t run for Congress.
Mr2001:
I don’t see why that is so important. I think we both agree that 18 year-olds are emotionally and mentally not leagues apart from 25 year-olds, but that doesn’t mean it’s safe to assume that 11 year-olds are not leagues apart from 18 year-olds. Just because the cut off age for childhood in the law books is arbitrary, doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a cut off age at all. There’s no need to throw the baby out with the bath water, in other words.
.
It may oversimplistic but it is practical. Sure, we can invent a whole battery of tests to measure who is competent and who is not, but as someone already mentioned, any practical application of those tests would only be seen after the deed in question is done. Man sleeps with girl, and man is caught by girl’s parents, then charged with “incompetent rape”. The man’s defense will be that he thought the girl was competent enough to give consent. But what would be his basis for believing this? The girl “looked” competent? She spoke articulately and was well read? Walked with sophistication and confidence? Knew how to tie her shoes? What could the man–who is fully aware that the girl is only 11 years old–say to support his claim that the girl is competent without having the results of a psychological test to go by? And if the girl takes one of these competency tests and fails it, would it really be fair to convict the man, seeing how there really was no way for him to objectively know the girl’s competency?
Why are you so sure that it is inaccurate? Does age not correlate at all with maturity, in your opinion? In my own opinion, some things are not measurable by tests or a 1 hour consultation with a shrink. Perhaps age is not the best predictor out there, but it is the most useful one.
I think it is a bit disingenious to frame it that way, though. Legally, minors are really not being prevented from having sex with adults, because they will not face the repercussions. They are not being discriminated against; rather, they are being protected. You see it as overprotectiveness, of course. But that is what it is.
But that’s what this is really all about. Adults getting in trouble. I understand your reluctance to make this about adult freedoms, but it’s the most honest approach, because those are the people whose “freedoms” and “rights” are really being curtailed by the existence of statutory rape.
If it makes you uncomfortable to defend the adult side of the issue, is it only out of aversion to facing the wrath of the SDMB? Or does something seem just a teensy bit wrong with sticking up for the 50 year-old men who get crushes on 12 year-olds?
Eleven year olds are not leagues apart from 12 year olds, who are not leagues apart from 13 year olds, who are not leagues apart from 14 year olds, and so on.
Clearly something happens between 11 and 18, but you can’t point to a specific age and say “Here’s the spot.” Any age you pick is going to leave some minors oppressed simply because of their age, which is no better than leaving some women oppressed because of their gender, regardless of whether the generalization is correct most of the time.
But throwing the baby out with the bath water is exactly what the age restriction does. Even if nine out of ten 15 year olds wouldn’t be safe drivers, that’s still one out of ten being denied rights because some politician thought an age limit was convenient.
Only for statutory rape cases - not true of the drinking age, voting age, driving age, etc.
She knew what sex is, what it could lead to, and whether she wanted it. I believe I went into more detail earlier in the thread.
This could be solved by phrasing the law as “should reasonably have known that the victim was incapable of consent”. If she demonstrates a knowledge of which acts are sexual, how to prevent pregnancy, and shows her willingness to participate, he has a good reason to believe her consent is informed.
Oh, it correlates to an extent, but not really a useful extent.
I can safely assume that a 20 year old can make his own medical decisions and a 5 year old can’t. But what about a 16 year old, 14 year old, or 12 year old?
The 16 year old is less likely than the 20 year old to be able to make his own informed medical decisions, the 14 year old is even less likely, and the 12 year old is still less likely. But that’s statistical and relative, and doesn’t say a thing about any individual 14 year old. Individuals, not demographic groups, are the ones who get turned away from voting booths, liquor stores, and the DMV.
No more wrong than, say, sticking up for neo-Nazis’ right to march downtown.
The thought of 50 year olds and 12 year olds having sex does make me uncomfortable. I don’t like to think about it. But to be honest, I don’t like thinking about two men having sex either, or cattle being slaughtered to make my steak, or a doctor cutting someone open to perform heart surgery. I may not like it, but that won’t stop me from sticking up for their right to do it.
So you see, the age of consent can work against minors as well as adults.
Buy why do car rentals often refuse customers under 25? I’m sure many 25-year-olds would be willing to pay higher rates, after all. But these car rentals opt to refuse their money. Why?
Ah, “expected” again. All your well-meaning but not practical “expectations”.
Interesting how you never really clarify how a kid (at age, let’s say, 11) will actually, in reality fulfill these “expectations”.
Besides, you already agreed that if a kid can apply for “adulthood”, then parents should be able to apply for his “adulthood” as well. Or have you changed your mind, and now think that it should be one-sided, and only the kid can apply for any sort of “adulthood” responsibilities?
And I assume these minors will still have to prove their financial responsiblity? And not just understand what they’ll be “expected” to do, but actually prove that they can actually do it?
And, what if a minor tries to opt for some “adult” right (like drinking) and the parent disapproves? Can a parent then say, “If you are granted this ‘right’ at this time, I am done with you, you’re on your own” and then apply for the child’s “adulthood”? (Or at least make the child be financially and legally responsible for themselves.) Because I can sure see how some parents would not want to be responsible for an 12 year old’s (for instance) drinking, no matter what the courts might say. Or would you “expect” that the parents would still be obligated to support the child and be legally responsible for the child, even if the child wanted a “right” that the parents were emphatically oppossed to?
Other than just paying lipservice to how you “expect” the minor to be responsible, would you actually “expect” them to really prove it?
An interesting, and possibly enlightening question. I’ll contact some rental companies and see what they have to say.
You said it yourself: College students often go to school and work at the same time. Surely some high school and middle school students can do the same, especially since they don’t have to pay tuition.
And the judge’s decision should take into account any hardship that would impose, such as being forced to spend 14 hours a day between work and school, or to change schools or enter a GED program.
Do adults have to prove they can afford kids before they’re allowed to consent to sex? Or that they can afford the mysterious financial consequences of drinking before they can buy alcohol? No. And neither should minors.
Here, I’ll help you out a little:
It also looks like Budget allows 18 year olds in NY to rent cars, and I strongly suspect it is only because they are forced to.
I am having trouble finding a car rental place who will normally rent to anyone under 18. I’m hard-pressed to find one who’ll rent to 18-year-olds without substantial extra fees:
Golly. That’s a lot of extra money to pay, and a lot of restrictions. And these are for adults between the ages of 21 - 24! Why, oh why, do they make it so difficult for these young adults to rent cars? Do you really imagine that they’d allow 13 year olds to rent (if the 13 year old could legally drive), no matter how much money the 13 year old had?
Oh! But that’s so mean! So unreasonable! :rolleyes:
But you just said above—if a kid needs to fulfill their “obligations”, they can work and juggle school. So, is such an expectation “reasonable” or not? And if it is not “reasonable”, then why would any judge expect any kid to do such a thing, no matter how many “obligations” and “expectations” they had?
You missed a very important point: Do adults have other adults supporting them and who are legally responsible for them? No. But children do. And you “expect” that these children can pick and choose which “adult” behaviors they are ready for, while their parents stand by and are still expected to financially support the kid, and are still responsible for them?
Of course not. Just like you can’t pick an exact time when a zygote stops being “just a mass of tissue” and starts being a human being. That doesn’t mean we should treat the fetus who is only a day away from being born the same way we would treat a one-day old zygote.
Oppression is a matter of interpretation. And it has been said repeatedly throughout this thread that children and women are not really comparable. A child will eventually grow out of his “oppression”, just as all of us adults have. A woman being forbidden to vote was never expected to attain the right; she was being denied something on the basis of a status that could never change (gender). Same way with blacks and other groups that were once legally discriminated against.
Funny how you choose the age 15 to state this particular argument, an age with rather convieniently is close to the legal age of driving. What if we are talking about 10 year olds driving instead? Let’s say a study shows that 90% of 10 year olds who managed to pass the Georgia driver’s test proved to be unsafe drivers out on the roads. Sure, 10% of them proved to be safe, but a whopping majority did not. Should we overlook the failings of the majority for the sake of the exceptions, or should we conclude that perhaps 10 year olds in general are not ready for that particular privilege (which driving is, BTW) and should probably wait until they’re a bit more mature before taking on that responsibility?
What kind of test do you think would measure how competent someone should be to legally drink? And would everyone have to take that test? Are you prepared to deal with grown men and women being the denied the “right” to a beer just because they failed some silly test? And are you really that fond of red tape?
And how would the man know she knew all of this? Simply because she says she does? A good many kids know what sex is and what it can lead to, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be coerced or emotionally taken advantage of by someone older than them.
I saw the same on Hertz’s web site. However, I’m looking for the reason behind the policy.
It is reasonable to expect a kid who accepts an obligation to fulfill it. OTOH, it is not reasonable to force an obligation on him and expect the same.
Please explain how this is relevant. If adults who already spend most of their income supporting themselves don’t have to prove they can afford kids, why should minors who have far fewer expenses?
True, but we can pick characteristics that separate zygotes from fetuses and use those to make the decision.
Sex can change, as can skin color (just ask Michael Jackson). The mere fact that minors’ oppression is temporary doesn’t excuse it.
No, because clearly we know that 10% of 10 year olds are safe drivers. Banning all 10 year olds from the road is a cop-out; the fair solution is to work harder to separate the good ones from the bad ones.
If a study shows that only 5% of women are qualified to be firefighters, should we prohibit all women from working as firefighters?
What kind of test? A written test about the effects of alcohol, alcohol related laws (DUI, public intoxication, restrictions on selling), and perhaps a doctor’s opinion as to whether this person’s liver is developed enough.
In principle, everyone ought to be held to the same test. But I’d accept a compromise: keep the drinking age, and allow anyone younger to take the test.
No worse than minors being denied the same right just because they haven’t gone around the sun some silly number of times. At least it would have a basis in reality and could be appealed.
Red tape is better than arbitrary discrimination.
I mean, we could save a lot of time and money by eliminating jury trials, and just declaring everyone guilty who’s suspected of a crime. No one wants a bloated court system, but it’s necessary to ensure justice.
Yes. If she says “yeah, I’m on the pill, but we better get some condoms before we do anything more”, he has a good reason to believe she knows about preventing pregnancy, STDs, and which acts can have those consequences.
Or someone the same age, or younger than them. The same is true of many adults. I don’t see a problem here: coercion is still rape.
Have you found a reason yet? And are you really mystified as to what the reason might be?
But do you force him? What if the little tyke suddenly realizes he bit off more than he can chew? Do we give him a free pass, because he’s a kid? And if we don’t give him a free pass, aren’t we forcing him?
But all sorts of “obligations” are “forced” on adults, and they cope. It comes with the territory.
How many times do I have to repeat this to you? BECAUSE THE MINOR HAS SOMEONE ELSE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM—THEIR PARENTS. And you want to dump even more on their parents? To have the parents watch their kids take on these “responsibilities”, which of course, they are not really taking on, because they are still being supported and have parents who are legally responsible for them? Why should we think that a kid is going to be “responsible” when they can’t or won’t even be “responsible” for themselves? And why should we force the parents to stand by and watch their kids (possibly) get in over their heads, and still expect the parents to support them and prop them up?
Just like I thought, once again—you want them to have their cake and eat it too. You claim that you “expect” them to be “responsible”, but it’s only after the fact, and it’s a solution that you yourself don’t think that most kids can handle (juggling school and fulltime work). So, when very likely a high percentage of the kids discover that they can’t “handle” it, what then? Will their parents (who are supporting them and still financially responsible) pick up the tab? Or the taxpayers?