State endorses 'force-ripe' parents
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Why is the age of consent 16? Can anyone explain the logic behind giving children permission to be engaged in the life-changing experience called sexual intercourse at that tender age?
Were the decision makers' holders of master's degrees and doctorates in biology and psychology? It seems like coming up with the consent age was a raffle because at age 16, neither mind nor body is ready for sex.
Now, while sex is a three-letter word and can be over in a minute, it can create or take your life, hence it should be a mature adult decision. We confuse our children by permitting them to engage in an adult activity and still be a child. Why was there a disparity between the age of consent and the widely accepted age of adulthood, which is 18?
A proprietor should not sell alcohol or cigarettes to minors. Parental consent is needed for children to get a tax registration number or a visa. You have to be 17 to be given a driver's licence. Doctors need adults' consent/permission to operate on children. Children cannot enrol themselves in school, nor can they get married without a parent/guardian giving consent. Parental consent is even needed to watch television.
Now with that said, how wise is it that the State should endow a child with the responsibility of making such an important, life-changing decision to become a parent?
This forces children into adulthood and permits adult perverts to feast on the immaturity and ignorance of children with permission, which is endorsed by the State.
Let us correct it, gate keepers. Children must be allowed to be children before they are adults.