That is an opinion, not an absolute.
On what basis? Yours!
But NAMBLA disagrees and feels the kid should be free?
On what basis, outside of personal opinion, can it be wrong?
I suggest you not try using that as a legal defense.
It's a fully defensible, objectively rational position.
But NAMBLA disagrees and feels the kid should be free?
NAMBLA are sickos with an obvious conflict of interest.
On what basis, outside of personal opinion, can it be wrong?
That people should not be forced to have sex without their consent is a principle of every system of ethics I'm aware of. If you want the Kantian position, for example, it's a maxim that can be universalized; and any contrary maxim cannot. Rape also violates the second categorical imperative (that humans are ends in themselves, and not means to an end.) That children are not capable of giving informed consent is a scientific fact, as well as a basic principle of jurisprudence.