Posted on 06/28/2015 4:54:39 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
In 16th-century England, the age of consent was set at 10 years old in an effort to protect young girls from sexual abuse by adult men. In 1875, parliament raised the age of consent to 13; in 1885, it upped it to 16. Now, a leading public health advocate has proposed that the United Kingdom bring the age down again in light of the high proportion of British adolescents who are having sex—with one another—before they’re legally capable of granting consent.
Lowering the age of consent to 15 (where it stands in Sweden) or 14 (where it’s set in Germany and Italy) would “take these enormous pressures off children and young people” who feel they need to hide their sexual activity, said John Ashton, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health. Concern over running afoul of the law prevents sexually active teenagers from seeking help from adults when they need it, Ashton said. The policy shift would better empower teachers and other supervising adults to provide sexual health education and contraception access to 14- and 15-year-old students. Said Ashton: "They are doing it, and we need to be able to support them and protect them.”
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
I fear for young boys who are “adopted” by gay male couples. In the current climate, even if the child comes forward, or the abuse is noticed by others, scare administrators will sweep the incident under the rug.
Thats my thought as well, put in a narrow range up/down where teenagers won’t be prosecuted.
Thats the way to handle this, if it should be handled. And its so obvious
as the best answer. So much so that its really hard to see those advocating forca general reduction in the age of consent using the “protect kids” argument as a Trojan horse to enable child molesters.
Because you can’t have licentiousness without free basic health care, the participants would die off faster than they could be generated.
The consequences of negative behaviors have to be subsidized or they die off...
Yeah. They're going to be used as sex slaves, and the American people can't do anything to save them.
“VENGEANCE IS MINE”, sayeth the Lord. From Leviticus in the Old Testament to Romans.
Michael Savage was right.
Lowering the age of consent to 15 (where it stands in Sweden) or 14 (where it’s set in Germany and Italy) would “take these enormous pressures off children and young people” who feel they need to hide their sexual activity, said John Ashton, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health.
Any sane person will admit kids this age should not be having sex. Our society and our culture has failed and these kids are paying the price.
Bingo.
Today, teens are being bombarded with sexual images (just watch Jerry Springer or Steve Wilkos someday) on tv, radio, or even at sporting events. Advertisers know sex sells, so unless we keep kids locked in a room, without any radio, tv or anything else, they'll see sex...this is a tough question, but should a 18 year old be labeled as a sex offender if he fell in love with a 15.
Now,I hate people who ABUSE anyone...
Nobody PUT them in ghettoes. Those still there have CHOSEN to stay wards of the state, rather than improving themselves and upgrading their lives.
If we could PUT anyone anywhere, it should be all the homosexuals in their lavender ghettoes, away from our children...
Personally, I favor what a lot of “red states” have for age-of-consent laws: 16 with a close-in-age exception reaching lower to avoid the legal idiocy of two 14 year olds “raping” each other. No opening for pedophiles (which would require an age-of-consent below puberty, really) nor even for ephebophiles, and it gets the benefits the British advocates of lowering age-of-consent are after.
In the context of the sixteenth century that sentence made sense, they were raising the age to ten to protect young girls under ten. Those over ten were not considered young girls they were considered young women. Of course in today’s culture is sounds oxymoronic. In those days marriage at fourteen or even younger was nothing out of the ordinary. Anyone who made it to thirty was likely to be a grandparent.
This has been coming for years. Although they’ve cleaned up a lot of the internet, they’ve been educating and normalizing teen sexual knowledge and acceptance for decades.
It’s like they don’t want an underground. Everything has to be acceptable in public. Look what has worked for them so far.
Think about it.
“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she though the age of consent should be 12!”
__________________________
I had to look that one up.
She did!!!
(A report prepared under contract no. CR3AK010 by
Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and 15
students from the Columbia Law School, New York
City was used as the basis for the Commission
study)
https://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12se9.pdf
Page 102 has the 12 yr old reference.
See link below for other Ginsberg recommendations and pg references:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
BINGO!!! There were many predictions that lowering the age of consent was next and here it is.
This is not about "protecting children" it's about serving them up to the paedophiles.
England or the American liberal dream state: You could have 50 yr old pedophile “dating” your 12 yr old son and you couldn’t even buy a gun to shoot the sob.
And they didn't even wait for the gloating over the DOMA ruling to fade.
Poor uneduacated people to often will take a handout. Especially, when the government says its your right.
Unfortunately, what has been going on in places like Sanfran will be spreading to a small town near you.
If it gets to crazy WE may want to our own housing away from it all.
The women isn’t right- Ginsberg stated in a 2009 interview with the New York Times that she thought the 1973 Roe v. Wade case which legalized abortion concerned the elimination of undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Many have interpreted this as an endorsement of abortion as a method of population control and/or eugenics. While shocking, such ideas are hardly new: similar views were endorsed by eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood years ago.
You reminded me. Who doesn’t think infanticide is not just around the corner? Maybe within next year at the speed were unraveling our once great Republic.
Its so “progressive”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.