UN Says Minors Can Consent to Sex!

Republican States pass laws to allow children to work longer hours and serve alcohol

and they also passed a bill to allow some sexual content in the libraries, such as the Bible

"Senate passes bill loosening child labor laws to let Iowa teens work longer hours"

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...eens-work-more-jobs-longer-hours/70121615007/

they also made it illegal for 10 to 13 year olds to have a paper route though

 

Hmm.. proof.. Exhibit A... The bill was introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat. https://www.kcra.com/article/california-governor-signs-bill-changing-sex-offender-law/33998732#

Exhibit B.
H.R.6401 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
“As a condition on receipt of assistance under this title, an entity shall agree to ensure that each minor who is receiving family planning services supported in whole or part through such assistance is informed of the age at which individuals in the State in which the minor resides can legally consent to engage in sexual activity.”.

There are many others. Including the UN policy as noted. Why do you suppose that democrats are so suddenly interested in being able to claim a child gave them consent?

 

Hi, flyboy56.

Unfortunately, some failed to spot the tongue-in-cheek in my post.

That said, the age at which people can do certain things is far from cut and dried. A quick check of the driving and drinking laws in the various US states is instructive.

The motives behind proposed changes to age-limit laws certainly deserve scrutiny. The motives driving them: ditto. The same, incidentally, is true of any law which changes the status quo.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

What the hell has family planning got to do with the original allegation? Which I remind was that the UN report in question wanted to encourage the right for adults to have sex with children. The section you quoted has nothing to do with that topic.

All that quote says is that if person is below the age of consent and approaches a clinician for family planning advice said clinician must inform that person of the age at which they may legally have sex. So what? You don't think they're allowed to know what the age of consent is? News flash. If they're below the age of consent and seeking the family planning advice then they're either already engaging in sexual activity or are considering doing so. You don't think in that case it's a good idea for the clinician to warn them of the potential legal ramifications of their actions? IMO if that makes a kid decide to wait a bit longer it's a good thing.

 

Uh, the document itself, which I had already linked to. Have you even read it?

But here it is again, I quoted directly from it.

https://icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp...ciples-FINAL-printer-version-1-MARCH-2023.pdf

 

Over the decades, I have seen the UN become only slightly more effective than the League of Nations.

Now it is almost like watching a powerless monarch that passes proclamations and declarations that everybody simply ignores. Either because they are detached from reality, or absolutely worthless.

Oh, and good luck getting any nations to follow that. Imagine going to most of the Muslim world, and telling them they have to decriminalize drugs. Not. Gonna. Happen.

I thought the primary goal of the UN was to help prevent conflicts. There are 27 of them ongoing right now, including in Europe itself. They are wasting time, money, and resources passing worthless proclamations and ignoring their primary mission.

 

To be fair until recently the number of wars/civil wars around the world has been in steady decline since the end of WW2 and large parts of the globe remain conflict free. The issue for the UN in terms of peace keeping or diplomacy is that it can really only ever do what it's most powerful members will support it in doing. And I don't mean just in direct funding but also in terms of political and if necessary military support. For example how long would the current civil war in Sudan have gone on if ending it was considered vital to the major powers interests?

For the rest? It's work on global health issues and co-coordinating disaster relief is, I believe probably more important. Unfortunately it's also where it could be doing so much better than it has were it not for the fact it's own constitution requires it to give equal access, representation and employment opportunities for citizens of every member state (no matter how corrupt or unethical those citizens may be). The result all to often is that corruption and mismanagement undermines or hinders important major projects. And when I say undermines I mean to an extent that no modern western state would ever countenance. For example the UN makes Italy or Greece look like Switzerland when it comes to effective and efficient public administration and financial probity!

 

Wait, what? Now I am not sure if you are joking, or oblivious.

The UN does not even participate in most conflicts, but over 1 million have served in them from 125 countries in 71 missions since the UN was founded. And there are 12 ongoing right now (one has been in place since 1948, another since 1949, and yet another since 1964).

And at least one in recent years that the UN just threw up their hands and left, resulting in an ongoing conflict that is now going on 32 years with no end in sight.

The number of wars has not been declining, it has been rather steady since then end of WWII. I find it amazing that somebody can even slightly believe that to be true.

In fact, every continent has had a UN peacekeeping mission either current or in the last couple of years except for Australia and Antarctica. Africa, Asia, and Europe have them now. The last one in the Americas only ended in 2019.

 

I expressed myself poorly. What has happened since 1945 is that the scale and seriousness of wars (in terms of deaths and destruction) has gone down dramatically. There has been an increasing number of 'bush wars' following the end of the colonial era but even then I'd argue that this in part really just represents a partial return to the pre-colonial status quo when local ethnic groups fought each other from time to time anyway. (Not a completely but in part.)

Exhibit (A) https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

Exhibit (B) https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-years

Exhibit (C) https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1812/1812.08071.pdf

As for throwing up it's hands and leaving? As I noted the UN can only be as effective as the support the major powers are prepared to give it. Basically if a conflict is of no intere4sted to any of those powers the UN will be limited to what financial and other resources it has immediately to hand. When they run out?

 

Well, since the benchmark used in that is the deadliest war in world history, that is actually saying absolutely nothing.

That is like saying the rate of death by disease has declined by the Red Death. Or the deaths by terrorism has declined since 2001.

Using a highwater mark as the baseline tends to render any claims provided absolutely worthless in supporting any kind of claim.

 

Some of the charts go back even further, the 3rd link tries to chart all known wars in recorded history to the best of the authors abilities. The point is the downward trend is still clearly evident there as well! In reality the bulk of that trend is due to rising global living standards and a reduction in poverty/inequality around the world. The UN can take some credit for this success due to it's role as a forum that has the power to encourage negotiated settlements between warring parties. But by the same token it's not responsible for failing to stop most of the recent conflicts, which apart from the current conflict in Ukraine almost exclusively involve failed or failing states or ones struggling to recover from past failures.

 

That is as false of a comparison as trying to link the nations most involved in trade in relationship to wars.

Nations go to war for their own reasons, and rarely does it have much if anything to do with economy or poverty. SO even mentioning things like poverty or inequality is of no bearing on that at all.

Russia was not exactly impoverished when it invaded Georgia or Ukraine. Germany was not impoverished when it invaded Poland. North Vietnam was not impoverished when it invaded South Korea. You are trying to look at wars based upon a false narrative.

 

Relevance to the thread?

 

it's about laws passed against the children, don't the right care about the children

republicans are decriminalizing child labor, allowing them to serve alcohol

what's next, they can buy alcohol and smokes for parents with a note again

 

You can't tell the difference between two 17 year olds having sex and a 12 year old marrying a 40 year old? I suppose if I couldn't tell that difference, I'd call that I ironic as well . . . but I can tell the difference.

 

I have to admit, it is funny reading all these comments from people who never read it.

If one reads this, it talks about "consent" a lot. And also in decriminalizing consensual sexual relations.

In fact, what quite a lot of it seems to be trying to say is that it is discrimination to prevent somebody who is underage from having sex. Or even engaging in sex work if they so choose. It actually does not discuss activity between minors, other than in the area that all such activity involving a minor should be decriminalized as it is discriminatory against them and removes their free will.

Now to be honest, I found the entire document an amazing example of doublespeak and nonsense. But you are way off topic, as it is not actually discussing contact between two adolescents at all. It is discussing all sexual contact involving an adolescent.

And on the face of it, trying to prosecute adolescents for having sex is a Gordian knot that is almost never done. Because literally, in the case of trying to prosecute two 16 year olds, they each would be both a victim and abuser. The closest that comes to that kind of claim is when one is a minor and the other 18 or 19. But even then, most jurisdictions in the US either have a "Romeo and Juliet" law, or prosecutors almost never prosecute outside of cases of assault. And in the majority of such laws, the age zone is between 14 and 17, with the elder being no more than 3 years older. So a 16 year old can date a 19 year old, and it is legal. But a 14 year old is still a jail sentence for a 22 year old.

 

By that logic, it doesn't talk about adolescents and other minors having sex with adults at all. If you can find me a source that actually clarifies that's what it means, then go for it and I'll gladly condemn it.

 

Do any nations criminalize sex between 15yr olds? The UNs concern is nations that criminalize sex between adults and minors.

 

The point is that everybody knows that 15 year olds can consent to sex in an ethical sense even if they pretend they can't when it comes to them having sex with somebody older. There's a lot of hypocrisy around age, in fact, like charging them as adults for heinous crimes but not treating them like adults when it comes to rights. So the real issue as far as sex goes for them is sort of like bosses having sex with people they supervise - the real legit concern is the issue of one person using power to exploit another, not capacity for consent being strictly determined by age. So the sort of situation one might address is when an 18 year old senior in high school has a relationship with a 15 year old sophomore, e.g. If they have sex, is it really rape? Not necessarily. Case-by-case basis.

 

The only source applicable here is the document itself. Which I have been quoting from.

It is not up to me to confirm your claim, you have to do that yourself. And the only "source" that would be applicable is the UN document under discussion.

So get busy and start reading and find it your own damned self.

 

That is not what the document says. Once again:

In other words, the age of consent according to the authors in many cases is too high, and should be brought into a range where they feel a person should be able to give consent.

In simple words, lower the age of consent.

And yes, nations do criminalize sex based upon age. What do you think the Taliban does when it stones girls? Any sex outside of what is approved of is illegal for the female, and often results in a painful execution.

 

Some of us think the issue is also of an older person using charm and offers of candy to exploit a minor.

 

I think the real issue is child marriage

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-make-case-child-marriage-1786476

Guess which party voted against the bill?

 

Funny, that at 17 I can own and drive a car, have a job, join the military, and do a lot of other things.

But to some, I should not be allowed to get married.

 

Not really, wars generally evolve from competition for resources. The more a tribe, city state, nation or empire has the stronger it is relative to its competitors. Nations see and grasp the opportunity to become stronger than their competitors while on the other side of the growth curve other nations, as they see their own power and influence waning fight to reverse that trend and what they see as the rising threat posed by newer rising powers. The main counterpoint to this process is trade. If you can trade with a potential competitor you obtain access to resources without the risks or threats that war bring to the table. And humans became very adept at trade, very early in their pre-history.

Look around the world today and as I said with the exception of Russia (which if you look closely falls into the waning power trap) I defy you to find a situation where the war in question is not occurring in failed or struggling states whose leadership have proven unable or unwilling or provide and/or distribute scare resources and services so that they the whole population.

Wars in South America and Africa have reduced in number and severity precisely because more and more developing or mid tier states are experiencing rising living standards and their populations don't have to resort to force to access goods and services. They can trade for them. Whats the old saying? All societies are only every three square meals away from anarchy!