Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

"Number of regulations" is an entirely meaningless statistic, as different regulations can have different scope and magnitude. It's like saying "number of laws".

It's also a little strange that requiring that it be performed by a licensed physician is supposed to be considered a bad thing?


And why is "scarcity of abortion providers" on this list as a "regulation"? And how do they even calculate that? It's certainly not per capita! In RI, it says we only have 4 abortion providers, but having 4 abortion providers in a state of that size is fairly different from only having 4 in, say, Ohio. Hell, depending on how they're spread out, in RI that could still easily mean that an abortion provider is within a 20 minute drive.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Abortion restrictions (in the US) visualized.

Enjoy.

Dammit Indiana, you make me feel shame.

[Christes]

And why is "scarcity of abortion providers" on this list as a "regulation"? And how do they even calculate that? It's certainly not per capita! In RI, it says we only have 4 abortion providers, but having 4 abortion providers in a state of that size is fairly different from only having 4 in, say, Ohio. Hell, depending on how they're spread out, in RI that could still easily mean that an abortion provider is within a 20 minute drive.

Washington DC has 8, and it's listed for that.  I was wondering the same thing myself.

[Andir]

And why is "scarcity of abortion providers" on this list as a "regulation"? And how do they even calculate that? It's certainly not per capita! In RI, it says we only have 4 abortion providers, but having 4 abortion providers in a state of that size is fairly different from only having 4 in, say, Ohio. Hell, depending on how they're spread out, in RI that could still easily mean that an abortion provider is within a 20 minute drive.

Washington DC has 8, and it's listed for that.  I was wondering the same thing myself.

Maybe it's just me, but every state I click on says it has 8... most of the numbered lists are all wonky...

[kaijyuu]

Okie dokie, long day is over, time to reply to g-flex.

I'm a bit tired, plus the conversation's moved on mostly, so I'll try to be brief. Also, I'm speaking from a US perspective since those are the laws I'm familiar with; dunno how age restrictions and other specifics are different elsewhere.


*crack knuckles* Children's Rights advocate mode engaged.

Neurology itself does continue developing throughout adolescence.

And well into your 20s, as was mentioned earlier. Besides, any claim about neurology will require proof of causation, not just correlation. You can't just say "well their brain's different!" and expect it to support your argument.

For some issues, it's better to be safe when it concerns child development. Yes, there might be a twelve-year-old somewhere who's somehow experience, rational, socially educated, and ethically sound enough to make the decision to have a sexual relationship with a 45-year-old and get married. However, if you assume that all of them can, then you've effectively destroyed the entire legal distinction between "minor" and "adult". I shouldn't have to explain why that's bad.

I'd absolutely love to destroy the distinction between "minor" and "adult." We're all human beings, remember, and thus any rights inalienable to a human being or a citizen of a state also inalienable to a child. Equality, and all that.

However, I'm being idealist. Practical concerns will make destroying the distinction be impossible for quite some time. In our world as it stands now, parents need to have the ability to force children to go to school, among other things.

Yes, limiting exposure limits experience. It does not completely remove it. Children learn from others (and are taught by them, especially parents/teachers and other role models), and also from taking small steps in the direction of an endeavor which they aren't currently capable of treating responsibly. For instance, even someone who's a virgin at 30 is likely more capable of making adult decisions about sex than a thirteen-year-old would.

I'm quite the advocate of sexual education. Everything you said is right, of course, but is in my opinion easily mitigated.

Part of experience is simply having experience with yourself. When it comes to sexuality, that's something that (in most ways) is pretty new to you at puberty, and something you deal with constantly in the ongoing years. Social and economic situations are another form of experience, which is why I made the statement about social maturity. People these days become socially and financially secure and independent at a later age than they used to, and that environment/situation shapes our experiences. It obviously isn't always correlated with age perfectly, but there is an obvious correlation, and stage of life itself and your socioeconomic circumstances matter a lot.

So you're saying children have less responsibility nowadays and thus are less likely to make responsible decisions? I can get behind that, actually. We as a society are overprotective, I think.

However, we're again using rhetoric like "less likely". I've already conceded the need to set arbitrary age limits on things due to practical reasons, but if my stance on this and other stereotypes hasn't made it abundantly clear, that sort of reasoning carries very little weight to me. "Because most of <insert group of people here> are like that" is something I'll almost immediately reject, no matter what you're talking about. This is perhaps the best argument you've made, and may even of shifted my opinion a bit, but not gonna convince me much beyond that.

You don't think that children are less developed than adults in more abstract or less testable ways than academic knowledge? Driving is different, as you can test someone fairly objectively on whether or not they can perform it, which is why we test for licenses, but there's also an element of mature handling of the privilege, which is why there's an age limit as well.

Well, those abstract reasons are what I was asking you. If it were academic knowledge, it'd be just as easy as testing for driving.

Regarding driving specifically, any argument about "maturity" will just make me laugh. If "maturity" is something you considered required for being able to drive, a very, very large chunk of the population should have their licenses taken away. People are often at their worst on the road; that's why "road rage" is such a common thing. Any correlation to age here is very weak at best (and again nothing more than correlation).

You know as well as I do that 16 year olds in the US are some of the worst drivers on the road. Bump the required age for driving to 25, and then we'll see 25 year olds driving just as bad. Experience is the deciding factor in driving ability by a ridiculously huge margin. If we lower or remove the age limit (and instead test entirely on competence), I sincerely doubt we'll see a boost to traffic accidents. Hell; if we want to reduce traffic accidents, the very very first thing I think we should do is make the driving exams a hell of a lot stricter. I, for example, should not have a license, yet I do. Why? Because everyone in the US is expected to have one; they pretty much hand them out like candy provided you drive in the right lane.

Driving is another thing I could rant about

Children voting? Where do you draw the line? Should people be able to vote the instant they learn to recognize a name on a ballot?

The line should be drawn based on something logical, not arbitrary like age. However, people like the arbitrary age limit because any practical and reasonable limitation could also be applied to adults. Knowledge of the issues, literacy, ability to recognize a name on the ballot; all these things can potentially affect adults. So, we don't limit voting based on that.

What does this tell you? It tells me that age is the deciding factor, not anything that actually matters. This is beyond prejudice; this is claiming inherent inferiority. Something intrinsic about children makes them ineligible to vote, and that something cannot also exist in an adult.

I would further respond to this, but sometimes I come across an idea so ridiculous I'm not even sure what to say about it, as I'm completely unprepared for it. Then again, you're someone who apparently thinks it should be legal for grandpas to seduce little kids, so I'm not sure we're operating from positions that are remotely compatible to begin with.

Here's why it's so alien to you: We're all taught from a young age that kids are stupid and adults know best. We're quite literally taught that children are inferior, all for the purpose of easing subjugation.

There are two reasons why it's so pervasive and unquestioned:
One, children themselves buy into it. It's a weird phenomenon, and exists throughout history with almost any demographic that's oppressed (especially the lower the magnitude of oppression). The cult of domesticity, for example, was perpetrated largely by women. Some slaves accepted inferiority too (though to a much smaller degree, due to much harsher oppression). People accept their own inferiority with frightening ease, especially if they're only "minorly" oppressed.
Two, the time limit. Kids are inferior now, but they'll be able to move on to full fledged human beings. It just takes time! This very much eases people into accepting it.




Ultimately my point is this: Children, of any age, are just as much human beings as you or I. Thus, they should be afforded every right you and I have, so long as there's no rational reason for them not to. This, furthermore, allows for parenting and such to still exist; it's just that parents or the state restricting a child's right should have actual reason to, not just "because I said so and you have no recourse to fight back." Finally, practically speaking, none of what I'm advocating will happen anytime soon due to logistical reasons (and there are plenty of those!).

I hope I've adequately expressed my opinion.

[Heron TSG]

I will say that it is impossible to reason with a five year old and sometimes "because I said so" is about the only recourse.

[kaijyuu]

But the "because I said so" isn't your real justification for forcing them to do/not do something. It's because they need those veggies to be healthy/need to do their homework to learn/etc.

[Criptfeind]

And when they do not accept that as valid?

[Bauglir]

Many kids are not rational, and it's rational to assume until proven otherwise that any given child is not. Less so, even, than most adults, in my experience. It's not just selfishness, a lack of concrete reasoning, or overly emotional decision-making; those are all just human traits that everyone, including myself, exemplifies to some extent or another. There's a tendency in younger children to come to conclusions based on no evidence (as opposed to the shaky evidence that most older people have), that when combined with everybody's stubborn refusal to accept the possibility of being wrong, leads to some very strange places; there are some kids (so far I've only had to deal with 2 of them, but it's 2 for 2 as far as anecdotal evidence goes) for whom logical reasoning is simply a foreign concept, and trying to explain something rationally just results in, "No, you're wrong."

Now, obviously, if a person demonstrates that these generalizations (repeat: generalizations) do not apply, then that's it, we're done. No need to apply arbitrary restrictions to their ability to make choices, other than practicality. No need to even act like the individual falls into a category other than "kid"; they're just a kid who happens to be better at making good decisions than most, and it's not like poor decision-making is a defining characteristic of being a child. The problems arise in implementing anything based on that, which is something you've already accepted so I don't really see a need to argue about it. Ideally, there's be something measured that actually correlates with general competence, but are there any people here who are actually arguing that arbitrary age restrictions are anything but an awkward kludge designed to avoid the worst case?

[kaijyuu]

And when they do not accept that as valid?

An appropriate avenue should exist for them to challenge it.


Logistical nightmare though, I know

Ideally, there's be something measured that actually correlates with general competence, but are there any people here who are actually arguing that arbitrary age restrictions are anything but an awkward kludge designed to avoid the worst case?

Yes, I do see some arguments that seem to follow the line of thought that age restrictions are not entirely arbitrary. Stuff like this:

you've effectively destroyed the entire legal distinction between "minor" and "adult". I shouldn't have to explain why that's bad.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I see such arguments as saying that there are intrinsic differences between "minors" and "adults" (or whatever word choice you prefer), not simply differences that follow statistical correlations. Those arguments are what I'm fighting against. If no on really has such arguments, perhaps my views are not as radical as I might think.

[Criptfeind]

And when they do not accept that as valid?

An appropriate avenue should exist for them to challenge it.

Now I know you are just joking around with us.

[kaijyuu]

Condescending dismissal #1. Oh well. Was bound to happen eventually.


As I noted in the part you didn't quote, it's far from realistically doable, at least in today's world. What, should we have courts for settling minor domestic disputes? Ludicrously impractical.

[Heron TSG]

Please, go find a 5 year old and explain biology to them. Make them understand that broccoli has merit as a food item. You can go so far as to use a mathematical proof in conjunction with this. It doesn't matter. Sometimes, authority must be a reason in itself. There are probably some young children who will understand, but the vast majority will not.

[Bauglir]

Please, go find a 5 year old and explain biology to them. Make them understand that broccoli has merit as a food item. You can go so far as to use a mathematical proof in conjunction with this. It doesn't matter. Sometimes, authority must be a reason in itself. There are probably some young children who will understand, but the vast majority will not.

This is the first paragraph of my last post, but clearer and with fewer disclaimers. It is of superior quality. I'm saying I agree.

It's great to try to apply reasoning, and it's always a good starting point. But it's far from a complete solution, and at a certain point you get some kids who are just pushing the limits of what they're allowed to do or say.

[kaijyuu]

You seem to be mistakenly thinking I require the child to understand why they need to submit to the authority figure.

No, authority is never a good enough reason in and of itself. It may be the only one the child will understand; I get that. They'll quickly unlearn that bullshit lesson though; that's why teenagers are such a pain They start questioning everything.