Palliata
Posts: 371
Joined: 8/9/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ishtarr
Do you feel that the court has any business stating that Alan is unable to consent?
Yes, I do. I'm gathering from the article that the man has been tested sufficiently for it to be known that the man could absolutely be considered a potential health risk to others at some point. It was very clearly mentioned that the man doesn't have the mental competence to understand sexual education. Should the man become infected with HIV, while not having the competency to understand safe sex practices, he could literally become a public health risk. The article doesn't say specifically that he is in a monogamous sexual relationship, so that may be part of why the system is involved in the first place.
Presumably his partners would be of normal IQ - if they are incapable of safe sex themselves aren't they responsible for whatever diseases they might acquire? It takes two people consenting to have sex, after all, and if neither chose to use protection that is far from the business of government.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
Being aware of the consequences hardly seems like a prerequisite to me since people make stupid decisions every day (although perhaps that too should be assessed as to whether it disqualifies such people from being permitted to have legal consent).
It's easy just to pick out his IQ or learning disability to substantiate the removal of the capacity for consent, but an actual dissection of that process would mean determining what acts/thoughts/statuses would be considered "below the threshold of autonomous consent", and then you'd have to start tossing a lot of other folks into the same box.
To the degree that one is able to construct and believe in a consistent structure of happiness, one should be permitted to pursue it. Arguments from the perspective of protection, though well-intended, are inevitably flawed (if not hypocritical).
This is very true - as I implied in my post, to be logically consistent about it you would need to start altering the decision making rights of a LOT of people if you want to do this.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
~FR
Its the difference between a legal definition.. and a moral one.
Legally speaking.. its about informed consent. Does Alan have enough understanding about sex, the consequences, and the danger signs to give informed consent? Mental impairment, lest I checked, was mild at 50 - 70 to moderate at 30 - 50. At 48, someone is unable to give any kind of informed consent, legally.
Morally? Wow, thats a loaded one. I think the court was right to act on behalf of Alan. The reason quite simple. He cannot give informed consent. While you may see this as the same as a legal definition... think about it. How often do you give informed consent for various sex acts to your partners ... or gain that consent? Even though they may be illegal and/or potentially harmful? It isnt Alan's motives, or desires I question... but those whom he would be involved with. This is a potential abuse in the making. No court is going into the bedrooms to determine if any acts are harmful, they dont have that right. What they are saying is... Alan doesnt have the ability to determine that for himself... so the court must.
Why exactly do we presume the court qualified to decide who is and isn't capable of making decisions to increase their own happiness?
quote:
ORIGINAL: xssve
This is the state imposing non-consensual celibacy - is there an IQ limit for being considered human now?
Couldn't have summed it up better myself.
_____________________________
I speak not of The Way, but only My Way. Think it not an indictment of Your Way.
I'm male. I know it sounds female. Work with me.
|
RE: Illegal to consent to sex? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread