“Defending this particular act is what has put you in the indefensible position as being a female pedophile apologist.”
Sorry, but again you confuse questioning the factual basis of the “damage” with my being a female pedophile apologist.
Given that I live near Miami, home territory of one Janet Reno, who was filmed in bed with a 15 year old female, and that said film was known to many in the law field and the rest of the community, and given my rejection of just about all Reno believed or did, to try to call me a female pedophile apologist crosses the line from the subtle to the ridiculous.
My previous question remains unanswered. Should the parents or the state be the final authority as to when a child is to have sex, and with whom?
I asked this question in this form because under western law, from Moses through Jesus time, including the Roman period, the child was legally the chattel of the father.
Liberalism effectively made the father responsible for the child but usurped his authority.
By the way, “deemed legal” sounds rather like “deemed passed”.
My question remains unanswered: Should the parents have the final deciding authority as to the age of first intercourse, and with whom said intercourse occurs - or should the state?
Since we agree that the present system leaves much to be desired, what should be? Note I asked what should be, not waht is presently legal.
That, to me, is important. ‘Specially in a post Obama period.
No. What I have said repeatedly is that damage does not have to be determined before agreeing with the concept of informed consent. That without informed consent laws pedophiles are given cover for their actions. If you advocate getting rid of age of consent laws then you are supporting pedophiles. That you think Janet Reno should have been prosecuted simply means that you are a hypocritical female pedophile apologist. If there were no age of consent laws and a parent discovered a 50 year old having sex with their 8 year old child what would their recourse be? It's not like they could call the police as the person wouldn't be breaking the law. A child being molested by their parent? If laws of consent are on the chopping block why not incest laws? Who are you to say what is right and wrong. Isn't that the parents decision?
"My previous question remains unanswered. Should the parents or the state be the final authority as to when a child is to have sex, and with whom?
Parents should never be able to determine with whom their child will have sex. Only adults (as determined by your individual state) can legally have sex as only they are able to make informed decisions. There are exceptions made for parents to be able to allow their children to marry at a younger age then the age of consent typically. This is the only legal way that "children" (but still above a legally mandated age) could have sex. In your state children could be married at 16. This provides the exemption for parents that you claimed was the only thing you wanted.
I asked this question in this form because under western law, from Moses through Jesus time, including the Roman period, the child was legally the chattel of the father.
I disagree with your claim. Children were never considered slave or property but a grave responsibility.
In your answer to what should be done is that child molestation should be made a capital crime.