The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > What is a child? > Comments

What is a child? : Comments

By Bob Ryan, published 13/1/2010

A child is defined by age, which is not always consistent with the age of consent, or age of majority.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Now that children are maturing much earlier and only a minority reach the age of 18 as virgins, the age of 18 seems a little archaic.

While not advocating the elimination of restrictions on people in authority, I feel that this is due for review.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 11:43:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob
Good article, I think that it would be impossible beyond the general age of puberty to define what is a child (universally).

I have argued, received the opprobrium of most, in the past that our laws are being largely influenced by our (religious/cultural/learned emotions...unholy trilogy) mores rather than logic or reality.

Specifically our attitudes toward sex is so mired with unholy trilogy that reason considered a hanging offence.

I cited a case of a girl living on the street since 11 1/2, living with a mid twenties man at 15 1/2, were forceably split up and he doing two years, resulting in disastrous consequences for both.

I also posed the question that the law and it's focus on 'black letter' rather than circumstances needed to be reviewed in the cause of equity and common sense.

The problem I have with the media is the difference between salaciousness and need to know in graphic detail and colour.

I cited the case where a news paper described how to where to find and how to get a high from ricin plants. After some pressure they posted a page 10 addendum warning that these activities are fraught with very real danger. Likewise cooking instructions for said (nonantidotable)poison was on the net. To me this is pornographic.
In which case I would mention that, while not absolute, 25 is the maturing point of the brain's ability for reason.

Clearly there are 40 year old children.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 2:36:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't agree with Internet censorship in the name of protecting children. Sensible parents make sure that their children access the internet on a computer in the living room (where everyone in the family can see what they are up to), have taught their children not to give out name and address online under any circumstance, and ensure that they don't know about the existence of social networking sites. My child has enough protection, and Internet censorship is therefore completely unnecessary.

On the issue of "What is a child" however, and related issues such as the age of consent, protecting children is a given:we do need rules about this to prevent adults from exploiting teenagers. As recent well-publicised brain research has established, the adult brain isn't fully developed until the early 20s - this means teenagers simply do not make judgements in the same way as adults. Current laws reflect this reality by having a juvenile justice system separate from the adult justice system.

11 and 12 year olds of my acquaintance are definitely not adults in the way they think and behave (and overwhelmingly not in their level of physical development either).

The age at which some teenagers have their first sexual encounter is also not a good argument for lowering the age of consent (16 in NSW)- you'd need to delve into these statistics further - for example by finding out whether early sexual encounters were regretted, and were they with someone of a similar age (there is some legal debate on leniency in cases of teenagers under the age of consent but of a similar age having sexual encounters). Statistics regarding early sexual encounters may simply reflect teenagers being exploited (or worse).
CK (JohnJ's spouse but couldn't be bothered registering)
Posted by Johnj, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 7:53:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps we should develop a test.

So many other qualifications are competancy based, why not adulthood?

Obviously the test would have many vectors, with perhaps few compulsory components, provided the average score was sufficient.

I see a world where bright 15 year olds vote and their schoolfriends parents do not.

So long as fundy religionists can be prevented from biasing the test *too* much, we should be fine.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 7:57:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've watched a few of Senator Conroy's media interviews. He does not perform well, nor am I at all convinced the man grasps the issues at stake.

After all, the only adjective I feel can really sum up this push toward internet censorship is 'bone-headed'. Not only the intent, but also the application. It. Just. Won't. Work. Find me just one expert with practical knowledge who thinks it will.

Thus, I am exceedingly skeptical that Conroy would take on board such analyses. Furthermore, the disdain for public opinion that has shone through here leads me to believe that even if he could comprehend these issues, they wouldn't be taken on board.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 13 January 2010 11:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that post CK/Johnj. I wanted to say the same and you saved me the trouble. Further:

The article says, <"It can be reasonably agreed that a child is one who has not reached puberty but I question why older individuals, (legislated children) from 13 to under 18, should still be called children for the purposes of child pornography law when they, in considerable numbers, clearly understand what they are doing sexually.">

- and the information link in the article points to puberty starting for some people as young as 10 or even 8.
http://www.drpaul.com/adolescent/pubertygirls.html

Based on physical development, the article takes no account of a youngster's emotional development, impulsiveness, or capacity to be assertive against an exploitative and worldly wise adult - such as a child sexual abuser, pornographer or the like.

Proposals to lower age of consent offer nothing whatsoever of benefit to children, but everything to adults who are piggish and selfish enough to prioritize their sexual gratification and profit making over the well being of youngsters.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 14 January 2010 3:00:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy