Why is Pedophillia wrong?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Why is Pedophillia wrong? » Why is Pedophillia wrong?

Why is Pedophillia wrong?
Disclaimer: I am NOT a pedophile.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

Why is Pedophillia wrong?

stephendonnelly
www.SendMeToChernobyl.com

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 20, 2007
Location: Southeast Michigan
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 53

Last Blog:

Posted 04/01/07 - 11:09 AM: Subject: Why is Pedophillia wrong?	#1
This is a rather "hot" topic, because pedophillia is such a taboo these days. A person who served a 10 year sentence in prison told me the following: ...If you ever are going to commit a crime that will send you to prison.......whatever you do, do NOT let it be because you were messing around with kids. Pedophiles don't last long in prison. Inmates don't like people who F* around with kids... And to be honest with you, I believe him. Pedophiles are viewed by the public as the scum of society --- I don't think anyone will disagree with me here. So, why exactly do we so shun pedophiles? I may take a LOT of heat from you guys for this, but I would like to express my views on this issue. I have heard many people tell me that they don't have anything against homosexuals. People have told me that they don't care if a person is sexually attracted to his pet dog, so long as he keeps it within the privacy of his own home. I have even heard people argue that some people are born as homosexuals. They say that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality. So, where do these people stand on the issue of pedophilia? Neither homosexuals nor pedophiles can argue that their sexual orientation is linked to hormones, since the hormones only give people heterosexual attractions. Furthermore, heterosexuality is the only form of sexual practice that procreates. Therefore, homosexuality is a "choice". You have to make a choice to take on the lifestyle of a homosexual. You must psychologically "convince" yourself that you are more attracted to people of the same gender than you are to people of the opposite gender. The question is now becomes, "Is any form of sexual orientation other than heterosexuality equally legitimate?" So, why is it wrong to be sexually attracted to children? Just like people who claim that they cannot help the fact that they are attracted to others of the same gender, there are people who claim that they cannot help the fact that they are attracted to people who are young. A common argument given as to why pedophillia is wrong is because it often exploits the fact that children are naive, and thus incapable of resisting those who wish to have sexual relations with them. This would properly be labeled as child abuse. While this is certainly true for a seven or eight year old, I would argue that it does not apply to a twelve or thirteen year old. Twelve and thirteen year olds are old enough to make informed decisions on their own. So then, someone could argue, "well, a 12 year old is immature, and thus prone to making bad decisions". But then, why do we allow sixteen year olds to drive? Is not the immaturity of 16 year olds a major cause for auto-related deaths? They are certainly immature, but not to the point where they are unable to make their own decisions. Why then, is consensual sex with a minor who is 13 or 14 years old inappropriate?** I mean, at that age, kids are already beginning to have sex with their peers. It's not like they don't know what they are getting into. Their decision may be influenced by immaturity, but it cannot be said to be uninformed. People have said that children are "innocent" and "naive", and therefore is it wrong for them to engage in sexual practice at a young age. I can tell you from first hand experience that just a single visit to your local public school will quickly dispel this myth. Children may not have experiential knowledge of sexuality until puberty, but they certainly know everything about it by age 7 or 8. I have had kindergarten teachers tell me that they have been having problems with kindergartners using swear words just articulately as middle-schoolers. They know exactly what F* means. It's not like they are innocently repeating words that they have heard other adults say. Kids are learning this stuff from other kids. If homosexuals can claim that homosexuality is innate, they why cannot pedophiles claim that pedophillia is innate?** I fail to see a difference. Neither have biological roots, other than the basic sexual drive that is present in all sexually-reproducing life forms. Please note that I am highly against any form of sexuality other than adult heterosexuality. I am not trying to defend pedophilia, but merely trying to compare it's absurdity to homosexuality. The basis for my views is in the teachings of my religion (reformed Christianity). But, I know that many members here do not view themselves as being religious. So, upon what basis do non-religious people view pedophillia as being inappropriate? Thanks, ~ Stephen K. Donnelly
Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries. (Tractatus Logico Philosophicus; Wittgenstein)

teleplasm
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 39

Posted 04/01/07 - 11:31 AM:	#2
The simple answer to your question would appear to be that children are deemed to be incapable of giving fully-informed consent to sex. The obvious fact that there are other groups of people (such as the mentally subnormal) who are not similarly protected is not an argument in favour of taking away children's protection. I don't think that it is, as you claim "a hot topic". Very few people outside paedophile circles (who obviously have a strong personal interest) advocate changing the law.

stephendonnelly
www.SendMeToChernobyl.com

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 20, 2007
Location: Southeast Michigan
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 53

Last Blog:

Posted 04/01/07 - 11:39 AM:	#3
teleplasm wrote: The simple answer to your question would appear to be that children are deemed to be incapable of giving fully-informed consent to sex. The obvious fact that there are other groups of people (such as the mentally subnormal) who are not similarly protected is not an argument in favour of taking away children's protection. Really? Because last I checked, teen pregnancy rates are at an all time high. Apparently teens don't think they are incapable of giving fully-informed consent. And many times, teens have engaged in sexual activity at an age as early as 12 or 13. I can understand how your argument might apply to younger children. But, we still consider 16 year old to be minors. So, at that age, why is it still inappropriate? I don't think that it is, as you claim "a hot topic". Very few people outside paedophile circles (who obviously have a strong personal interest) advocate changing the law. I phrased this poorly (my bad)..... What I meant is that most people are particularly vehement in their despising of pedophiles. Even more so than towards homosexuals.
Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries. (Tractatus Logico Philosophicus; Wittgenstein)

teleplasm
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 39

Posted 04/01/07 - 12:04 PM:	#4
stephendonnelly wrote: Really? Because last I checked, teen pregnancy rates are at an all time high. Apparently teens don't think they are incapable of giving fully-informed consent. And many times, teens have engaged in sexual activity at an age as early as 12 or 13. I can understand how your argument might apply to younger children. But, we still consider 16 year old to be minors. So, at that age, why is it still inappropriate? The fact that teens may believe themselves capable does not imply that they are. I'm not familiar with the law on this subject in the USA, but in Britain 16 year olds are fully capable of giving consent to heterosexual sex. The position in regard to homosexuality is murkier, but in practice the law is no longer enforced against 16+. I should also add here that in Britain the term "paedophilia" is confined to sex with pre-pubertal children. Otherwise, it's "having sex with under-age boys or girls", which is a less serious offence. I phrased this poorly (my bad)..... What I meant is that most people are particularly vehement in their despising of pedophiles. Even more so than towards homosexuals. There's no mystery about this. Most people feel very strongly about children, and react vehemently when they're harmed. In contrast, hatred of homosexuals is mostly confined to brutes or religious maniacs.

GDA
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 56

Posted 04/01/07 - 12:25 PM:	#5
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality It really isn't so clear, I don't see what evidence you are basing your claims about homosexuality on. Though there is now evidence that a lot of philias have innate causes.

stephendonnelly
www.SendMeToChernobyl.com

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 20, 2007
Location: Southeast Michigan
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 53

Last Blog:

Posted 04/01/07 - 12:35 PM:	#6
There is evidence that gives us certain information on how the Big Bang may have played-out, and how intelligent life evolved from it. However, none of this information can conclusively prove anything. It is purely suggestive, at best. Besides, heterosexuality has procreation as its defense as being the only truly biologically natural form of sexual orientation. Who is to say that there is no studies out there that may offer suggestive evidence to the argument that pedophile's can't help the fact that they are sexually attracted to children? But either way, this is all beside my original point/question which is: Why is pedophillia considered wrong? Thanks. ~ Stephen K. Donnelly Edited by stephendonnelly on 04/01/07 - 12:47 PM
Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries. (Tractatus Logico Philosophicus; Wittgenstein)

GDA
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 56

Posted 04/01/07 - 01:13 PM:	#7
Science, and logical argument, rely on assumptions. Anything could be incorrect. Belief in a religious deity could be incorrect. So it is best that we don't state either as if they are incontrovertible. Why is anything considered wrong? Society tends to be protective of children and reluctant to talk about sex with them. This, topped with media hype and society's dislike of non-criminals being harmed or wronged creates the dislike of paedophilia. Nothing is really inherently wrong in my opinion, but I'll avoid this cliched argument for now. Japan has an age of consent of 13 years old. There is no abnormal amount of child-abuse there. Which suggests that, if we in the west were more open about sex, an age of consent of 13 would be able to work quite well. Under that age, and we enter a grey area. Heterosexuality is biologically normal. All biologically caused orientations are natural, if abnormal. Why is normality good? Edited by GDA on 04/01/07 - 01:49 PM

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land
Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 04/01/07 - 02:27 PM:	#8
stephendonnelly wrote: I have heard many people tell me that they don't have anything against homosexuals. People have told me that they don't care if a person is sexually attracted to his pet dog, so long as he keeps it within the privacy of his own home. First, mostly people mean that if two adults of the same sex want to have intercourse of their own free will and do not force others to see it, then there is simply nothing wrong there. In the second case I would on the other hand question whether the person has really thought his claim through: is it really okay to have sex with dogs? You cannot at least talk about consent, since the dog can hardly consent to anything in the same way adult humans can. Other arguments may be provided, but I think the latter claim is more questionable. (On the other hand, I think "being attracted" is hardly a crime. Acting on it may well be. Just like wanting to punch someone is okay (and very human, I may add), but doing so is mostly not okay.) Nonetheless, it is hardly an argument for pedophilia that other forms of sex are accepted since we shun pedophilia exactly because it is in some way different. I have even heard people argue that some people are born as homosexuals. They say that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality. The jury is still out, but there seems to be a lot of scientific evidence suggesting that people are indeed born homosexuals. There are also a lot of documented cases in which animals have had life-lasting sexual relationships with animals of the same sex. In the case of giraffes, for instance, I doubt that the reasons are culture-related etc! So, where do these people stand on the issue of pedophilia? Since these matters are very different (in the first case we are talking about consenting adults, in the second case about animals, not humans -- after all, we think eating animals is okay, but do not endorse eating other humans!) I am sure "these people" will have varied opinions on the issue of pedophilia. Neither homosexuals nor pedophiles can argue that their sexual orientation is linked to hormones, since the hormones only give people heterosexual attractions. Would you care to provide some evidence for this claim? And if you are trying to prove that homosexuality is a choice, then your argument is severely lacking even if true: homosexuality may be caused by something else than hormones. And very probably is. Also, a woman to whom testosterone is given does not immediately want to have sex with women. So might there be something amiss here? Furthermore, heterosexuality is the only form of sexual practice that procreates. Therefore, homosexuality is a "choice". This does not follow by a long shot. First, is the desire to masturbate also a "choice" in your sense? It does not procreate, yet humans are clearly quite naturally oriented to do it. Several animals as well. Second, I assume that you are referring to the idea that if it were genes that caused homosexuality, then these genes would not be fit since they do not procreate. This is based on a very faulty idea of evolution and there are several explanations as to how a gene causing homosexuality could exist. One and the most evident explanation will arise when you start to ponder as to why we have diseases that are trasmitted through genes? With the same logic as given here that would be impossible! Especially you would have to be quite sceptical about the fact that barrenness can also be genetic. And there are other problems still in your claim. Also, there are many animals that procreate without heterosexuality, such as adrogynes and bacteria etc. Heterosexuality is just one of the millions of possible ways genes could be transmitted. You have to make a choice to take on the lifestyle of a homosexual. You must psychologically "convince" yourself that you are more attracted to people of the same gender than you are to people of the opposite gender. There is little basis for this, especially if you think about how hard it is to live as a homosexual. All scientific evidence point to the fact that homosexuality in general is definitely not a "choice". It may be some sort of mental disorder, but there is no scientific evidence for this either, but even if it were, it is not a choice -- no more than schizophrenia is a choice. The question is now becomes, "Is any form of sexual orientation other than heterosexuality equally legitimate?" My question would be instead to ask as to how anything you say above links up with "legitimity"? If it is procreation that makes sex "legitimate", then using condoms or pills etc is illegitimate, and so is masturbation. And exclusively oral or anal sex, and a lot of other forms of non-procreative sex. Perhaps people who have been diagnosed as inable to have children should be banned from sex? To jail with them if they have sex, since they do not procreate! So, why is it wrong to be sexually attracted to children? I do not think it is wrong to be sexually attracted to children. ACTING ON IT is, however. It isn't illegal to want to steal money, but it is to steal it. Just like people who claim that they cannot help the fact that they are attracted to others of the same gender, there are people who claim that they cannot help the fact that they are attracted to people who are young. This is of course true, although I still cannot see why homosexuality and pedophilia become interconnected in your mind. You could as well substitute the first part of the sentence with "Just like people who claim that they cannot help the fact that they are attracted to others of the other gender". A common argument given as to why pedophillia is wrong is because it often exploits the fact that children are naive, and thus incapable of resisting those who wish to have sexual relations with them. This would properly be labeled as child abuse. This is of course the main point. Children in pedophilic situations either do not want sex with adults or do not yet comprehend the full implications of it (or, in the case of very young children, do not even understand what it is about). This is what is claimed, and this is what make pedophilia in general unaccepted. We do not think rape is nice either -- even when someone is for instance so stoned with drugs that he or she has no chance of comprehending what is being done to her or him. One may even want to have sex and still we consider doing so wrong, because a) the person's judgment is clouded (by drugs, mental injury, whatever), or b) the person is only willing to have sex to avoid something worse (such as in the case of blackmail or whatever). I at least tend to think that what distinguishes acceptable and not-acceptable sexual behaviour is consent. Consent is not thought to be present in the case of children. While this is certainly true for a seven or eight year old, I would argue that it does not apply to a twelve or thirteen year old. Twelve and thirteen year olds are old enough to make informed decisions on their own. This is quite a claim. There are most definitely a host of things about which twelve-year-olds cannot make an informed decision. A child of that age cannot possibly realise the implications of for instance raising a child. Moreover, while what you are saying is arguable in the case of some 15-year-olds, it hardly applies to children as young as you portray. Having taught several 13- to 15-year-olds in school I can honestly say that most of them are really very naive and young. It is just a trend of our society that children want to grow up fast, so they try to make it appear as if they were very mature. Mostly, they are not. Also, you must understand that the laws for instance are meant to help the less fortunate twelve-year-olds that are not as mature as to decide for themselves. Laws are bound to fail in being totally right for everyone. I think some 18-year-olds are not mature enough to consent for sex and some 14-year-olds may well be. But the main point is that the line must be drawn somewhere, just like in the case of driving a car, owning a gun and drinking alcohol. (In all of these it is arguable that in every age group there are people who really shouldn't do any of these.) So then, someone could argue, "well, a 12 year old is immature, and thus prone to making bad decisions". But then, why do we allow sixteen year olds to drive? You must be kidding, right? This someone whose argument you present is talking about 12-year-olds. You respond by talking about 16-year-olds. Well, perhaps we should let 12-year-olds drive cars as well if we allow 16-year-olds to do that? What you are saying MIGHT apply to 16-year-olds in what comes to sex, but certainly not 12-year-olds. And even so it is very shaky for two reasons: 1. Driving a car and having sex are two distinct things. Isn't it possible that someone might consider someone old enough to drive a car yet not old enough to have sex? Some places have different age limits for possessing guns, for instance, as well as for drinking alcohol. 2. It may well be that allowing 16-year-olds to drive cars is stupid. I think it is. In Finland the limit is 18 and that too seems to be too low for many, but perhaps tolerable. To argue that "we allow something stupid already so lets allow other stupid things" is sheer folly. Instead, you would have to argue directly for there being good sense in allowing 16-year-olds to have sex with adults. And in that case it hardly applies to 12-year-olds. In any case, you would have to draw a limit and then you could ask "why can't it be lower?" In fact, you are confusing two things here anyway. Pedophilia is by definition having sex with underaged. You seem to argue that the definition of "being underaged" is wrong: it should be lowered. That, however, has nothing to do with why pedophilia is itself wrong. That is, I think, because of the lack of consent and that remains even if we change the legal age limit for consent. Is not the immaturity of 16 year olds a major cause for auto-related deaths? They are certainly immature, but not to the point where they are unable to make their own decisions. This is interesting. First you imply that immaturity of 16-year-olds is a major cause for auto-related deaths. Then you argue that they are not unable to make their own decisions. Where you see backup to your case, others may see the same thing happening to their opposing case: what if they ARE unable to make their own decisions well enough, and THEREFORE cause auto-related deaths? Perhaps it is in fact foolish to let 16-year-olds drive? And again, the earlier points of irrelevance applies. You speak of homosexuals and driving yet fail to show what either of these have to do with why pedophilia is considered wrong. Why then, is consensual sex with a minor who is 13 or 14 years old inappropriate? You should yourself see how shaky your argumentation is. If you think you are being honest and convincing, why not use the same age-limits? That is, 16? In Finland at least that is the legal age of consent -- in some places it is 18, in some places other than that. Earlier you spoke of 12-year-olds, now 13- to 14-year-olds, and for both you argue through 16-year-olds. I mean, at that age, kids are already beginning to have sex with their peers. It's not like they don't know what they are getting into. Their decision may be influenced by immaturity, but it cannot be said to be uninformed. Why exactly do children that do X know what they are getting into when they do this X? Isn't that what childhood is about: learning what to do and what not to do? Children do steal, so perhaps this is an argument for showing that they know what they are getting into? A child may even take his or her parents' car keys and drive the car -- mostly ending up in a wall etc. That they do something is not a very clear indication of that they know what they are doing, especially in the case of children. We can't really leave those decisions up to the kids. I know that I did a lot of stupid things when I was young. And whenever I did those, I did those thinking otherwise (which is exactly why I ended up doing stupid things). The ultimate point is: a child is considered unable to know what they are into when they have sex. In the case of children, they may have sex exactly because of this. This is not illegal. What is considered illegal is that the other party of sex is an adult who DOES know what he or she is doing, yet at least should be aware that the child may not -- even though the child may tell otherwise. (They are always saying that they can do things they really can't, like drive cars or handle liquour.) People have said that children are "innocent" and "naive", and therefore is it wrong for them to engage in sexual practice at a young age. I can tell you from first hand experience that just a single visit to your local public school will quickly dispel this myth. And I can say, from the same kind of experience, that they really are immature and that the laws are well placed. It is not the innocence or naivete that is at the issue, but the lack of making fully informed and thought-out decisions. Many children have experienced abuse and whatnot, and in that sense are far from naive, and many children have done crimes, and in that sense are far from innocent, but neither is a basis for allowing them to abuse or do more crimes. Children may not have experiential knowledge of sexuality until puberty, but they certainly know everything about it by age 7 or 8. This is most definitely false. Hundreds of studies show that children and also many adults know very little about sex. Quite a lot of children have absurd notions as to how someone can be impregnated. A child age of 7 or 8 knows next to nothing about sex, although he or she may well know a lot of the terms and things involved. They know a lot about driving as well (steering wheels and all) but are not ready to do that themselves. They know a lot about a lot yet that does not make it okay for them to do those things. This should be obvious. I have had kindergarten teachers tell me that they have been having problems with kindergartners using swear words just articulately as middle-schoolers. They know exactly what F* means. It's not like they are innocently repeating words that they have heard other adults say. Kids are learning this stuff from other kids. I can't see where you could possibly be aiming with this. The point is that children are not ready to really make the decisions because they cannot properly weigh the possible consequences etc. Just like a child may know how to fire a gun, he or she may not still be mature enough to own and use one, since he or she cannot understand the possible consequences of firing a gun, nor understand the responsibility involved. Really, think about it for a while: it is exactly because of this that we do not allow children to do a lot of things. We don't give them credit cards just because they would know how to use them. If homosexuals can claim that homosexuality is innate, they why cannot pedophiles claim that pedophillia is innate?** I fail to see a difference. Then you fail to see the reason why pedophilia is considered wrong. Pedophilia is wrong, of course, when you act on it. It is different from homosexuality because the participants do not all consent. I don't think there is anything wrong in someone being "innately" attracted to children -- one cannot help that, after all! What an adult should understand, however, is not to act on it. The same applies, for instance, to being angry and wanting to punch someone. [b]Please note that I am highly against any form of sexuality other than adult heterosexuality. I am sure you are. I can tell by the way you link homosexuality with pedophilia even though they have nothing to do with each other. I am not trying to defend pedophilia, but merely trying to compare it's absurdity to homosexuality. The basis for my views is in the teachings of my religion (reformed Christianity). But, I know that many members here do not view themselves as being religious. Of course, this was expectable. You can of course believe what you will in your reformed Christianity, but if you want to discuss philosophical ethics (this is not the religion-forum) then you ought to give philosophical grounds. ~M~
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

stephendonnelly
www.SendMeToChernobyl.com

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 20, 2007
Location: Southeast Michigan
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 53

Last Blog:

Posted 04/01/07 - 03:17 PM:	#9
Well, as you have more than thoroughly laid out with much detail, I must admit that my argument is incredibly weak and ineffective. For that, I do apologize, and in the future, I will try to ensure that my argument is well supported. I therefore do not see much use in attempting to counter-argue your many points. To be honest, most of what I said in my original post could have really been left out, altogether. It almost distracts from the point and question that I am really trying to make. My ineffective argument aside, what is it, specifically, that causes people to so vehemently shun pedophillia? Is it merely for the obvious reason that children are vulnerable, naive, and incapable of making good decisions? Or does anyone think that cultural beliefs might play some role in this? For instance, in some African tribes, marriage (which is followed immediately by sexual intercourse) occurs at a very young age. Typically, just after a female child has undergone puberty. While we might label this as "abuse" or at the very least, "adults taking advantage of children" in our countries, this type of activity is not deemed inappropriate within these tribal communities. In fact, it is considered to be the normal, proper course of events. The male child, once he has undergone initiation rites which occur during puberty, is expected to take a young female a wife. Additionally, it is not uncommon for a male to have multiple wives, all of which are in their early teenage years. However, many of these tribes also have their own definitions of pedophillia. For example, they would deem sexual relations with an infant or pre-pubescent child inappropriate. And the reason that such communities would draw the line at that point is for the same reasons that we draw the line at 13 or 16 or whatever age is the legal age of consent. The reason is pretty much the same everywhere you go: Young children are naive, vulnerable, and incapable of making informed decisions. So, in this sense, we do see an example in which culture plays a large role in determining what is considered to be wrong. What we in what we call "the civilized world" deem "wrong" or "unethical" may not be considered inappropriate to another culture. My point in saying this is simple: the fact that children are vulnerable is probably not the only reason why pedophillia is so despised. I mean, what do you think? Do we define "wrong" or "unethical" as being "that which is abnormal"? And at that point, how do we define "normal"? I understand that there are many things that can be considered to be both acceptable and abnormal. However, we have to draw the line somewhere. Civilized life depends on having a sturdy basis of standards. It is the foundation upon which the laws are able to stand and function. And, upon what basis do we draw this line? Sexuality is an incredibly complex topic that is, in my humble opinion, not very well understood at this point. Perhaps future generations of scientists will be successful in pinpointing the precise genetic-material that determines a person sexual orientation. A lot of sexuality seems to lie in the realm of psychology, though, so science, alone, may not be completely capable of explaining everything. At any rate, I hope this post was slightly better constructed than my first. Thanks for taking the time to comment. ~ Stephen K. Donnelly Edited by stephendonnelly on 04/01/07 - 04:42 PM
Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries. (Tractatus Logico Philosophicus; Wittgenstein)

mrousseau
Godelian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 536

Posted 04/02/07 - 05:07 AM:	#10
Children are not capable of understanding the consequences of sexual relations. Further, these relations can have severe traumatic consequences on the child. In light of the harm that can be caused as well as the fact that children are not mature enough to make the decision on whether to have sex with someone, it should be illegal and punished severely. Another reason it must be punished severely is the response by the family members and the rest of society and their reaction to the event. If pedophilia were looked upon as a small crime by those affected by it, it might not be punished so severely. But since people have a hard time dealing with the fact that their little 10 year old daughter is being molested by a 30 year old man, either we send the pedophile to jail for 10 years, or the father kills them. Since we do not want to send the father to jail unnecessarily, we might as well either kill or lock up for a very long time the offender. The first of the two options being the easiest and most effective.
Do unto others.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.