Originally Posted by Slon

I see you come from a selfish group with no principle that is only interested in legislation that directly assists them. Otherwise, you would understand that people are capable of supporting legislation out of principle, even if it does not directly benefit them, in which case you would not make such assumptions as the one above.Well, that's precisely the debate, isn't it, Mrs. M? Should the state ban children from making certain decisions, based on "ageist" assumptions and generalizations, as if the children were the private property of the state? That is indeed the argument, but I don't see how restating that adds anything to the debate.

A law doesn't state that something is "wrong," it states that something is "illegal." Furthermore, don't you think it would be possible for parents to take a middle ground, like maybe teach their kids not to have sex? What kind of a careless parent needs the government to protect their kids from having sex?