|
CuriousLord -> RE: Ability to consent (5/31/2007 1:45:47 PM)
|
Not to pick, just wanted to point out some exceptions and make a few comments. Good post, btw!
quote:
The concept of what would validate or invalidate consent is therefore worthless because, in the US at least, consent becomes legally invalidated the second we question our acts. Should we choose to take action upon that is more of the issue than whether or not consent existed.
To me, this would beg the question, "What is consideration?"
Would one have "considered" the consquences of going through a door if he didn't know there were spikes at the bottom?
Would one have "considered" the consquences of getting a loan at 25%, compounded monthly, if one was inept at Math?
Would one have "considered" the consquences of going to war against another nation, either through office or voting for such, if one was unable to anticipate the scope or magntidue of severity of such?
Would one have "considered" the consquences of sex if one didn't know how it'd make her feel a year later?
In the end, to me, it seems that "consideration" is the general concesus of what others believe they could have/should have done in similar shoes. This method strikes me a silly convention, at best.
quote:
A "child progeny" CAN in fact, applied to a Court for emancipation providing them certain equal rights as adults under the law to have some say in their lives. Therefore, one might ask, if the child is indeed a progeny, and wishes to have more control over their lives, why then, were they not able to they are able to do this?
Emancipation doesn't allow for most consent. It doesn't allow for sexual consent or drinking. It simply allows a teen near the age of emancipation, typical, (so about age 16+) to leave home and cease claiming parents as guardians. If I remember correctly, it also allows them to own property- but I'm not sure about this one.
Emancipation does not allow for drinking, sex, etc. Also, it requires a reason to leave home- typically, a hopelessly abusive family situation in which the court finds it in the child's best interest to leave, despite the risks of being alone in the world.
Most prodigies would be silly to give up a free home and do away with their familes just for the sake of being able to rest an apartment for a year or so. And they'd also have to have a hopelessly horrid household situation to even try to get this.
quote:
A bigger question might be do we, as a society, have an right and obligation to protect those weaker, whether it be in body or mind? The "laws" that people tend to complain about, such as at what age can one be reasonably expected to understand or do what, are designed to protect the majority. Sometimes that may inhibit a minority. As with an emancipated minor, the law allows certain "loopholes" for those of greater maturity and understanding an avenue for proving that they do indeed to possess those capabilities.
Again, these loopholes are insignificant next to their cost in most cases.
quote:
Can a child of ten, regardless of their IQ, have enough life experience to choose to enter into an intimate relationship with someone? I don't believe they can. On the other hand, can someone with a greatly decreased mental capacity, what used to be called (unpolitically correct as it may be) "functionally retarded" have the ability to enter into a relationship or raise a child? The law has repeatedly said yes.
I believe some children may be at 10. I'm rather sure of it, actually. I know it's hard for people to understand, to empathize with, but some are truly able to grow at extraordinary rates.
Now, I believe that the sex drive may not be surficiently strong enough for one to inconvince oneself at such an age by making such a commitment. So they may not want to- but I'm rather sure some are able, even if they don't care to.
quote:
So CuriousLord's question of whether regarding interactions with those outside our "level", which one is left only to assume is meant to mean intellectual, a crime? People tend to naturally gravitate towards people they are compatible with, i.e. smart people don't tend to seek out stupid people. So while it may not be a "crime" to associate outside of one's "level", it certainly does seem that the process of "natural selection" takes place, negating the need for such a law.
So you'd argue that a smarter individual has the right to beguile less intelligent people? (This isn't rhetorical. It seems like an unavoidable conclusion at times- I'm curious as to how another might answer it.)
quote:
I say over and over that those with an impaired mental state in this lifestyle, those still coping with issues of previous abuse are at high risk and not necessarily capable of making rational decisions regarding this lifestyle. Is it wise for someone who is perhaps on disability for psychological issues to be active in this lifestyle? In my opinon, probably not. One must suffer very seriously from those psychological issues to be classified as disabled, yet they are still considered to be capable of consent.
Sounds like good advice.
quote:
This is a subject that could go around and around and never would there be an adequate answer that was agreeable to everyone. We all make our decisions. On these boards, those with more experience and wisdom try to guide those with less to help them develop the ability to make informed, rational decisions. Sometimes I believe, as a group, we are very successful. Other times, as a group, I think we might as well all be pissing into the wind.
Good post! I'd highlight the misunderstanding of emancipation and the question as to, "what is consent?", but you made the argument well. Thank you for the response.
|
|
|
|
