Grockel

Most nations have a legal drinking age, this varies from 16 in Switzerland, 18 in the UK and 21 in some US states. The purpose of this drinking age is to prevent individuals below this arbitrary age from obtaining alcohol or entering a premises in which alcohol is served. This is intended to protect individuals below this age from the negative effects of alcohol. Unfortunately these drinking age laws are not only unenforceable but counter productive. Teenagers under the arbitrary drinking age will still obtain and drink alcohol, via older friends/parents/siblings and so on. Because these underage drinkers are not allowed to drink legally they do so on street corners, at house parties and at other unsupervised locations where they vandalize things and are vulnerable. Therefore it would be safer to lower the drinking age and let teenagers into pubs/clubs where they can drink in a safe environment. What do you think?

Allow me to rephrase the question: Is adults having sex with children intrinsically harmful? Children are not asexual. Toddlers have been known to masturbate, even doing so in public as they are unaware of any taboo. According to such researchers as De Jong, 1989, by the age of two or three years children begin to explore their own genitals via masturbation, and to explore the genitals of other children by means of such games as "playing doctor," playing "mommy and daddy," and by means of childish attempts at sexual intercourse. Dr Saltzman says: "Ordinary sexual experimentation between children within the same family is definitely not incest." Why can't an adult be a apart of this sexual experimentation?

Adults having sex with children is considered one of the most heinous crimes. The rape of a child causes significant trauma and physical harm. However consensual sex with children, which may not even be penetrative, is a grey area. In order for something to be justifiably criminalized it must be harmful, for this reason homosexuality has been decriminalized. There are several factors which need to be discussed when deciding if pedophilia is intrinsically harmful. Age of consent Ages of consent are arbitrary and differ across nations. In Italy a 40 year old can legally have sex with a 14 year old, whilst in California a 20 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend is committing statutory rape. The problem with an age of consent is that it doesn't allow for exceptions: young people are criminalized for having consensual sex whilst vulnerable teenagers over the age of consent are unprotected. There is no scientific evidence suggesting that sex before a certain age is intrinsically harmful. Taboo and morality How society views sex is important, sexual ethics are subjective and ever changing. Sexual taboos exist in every culture and cause individuals to feel shame, guilt and other powerful emotions. These taboos are often unjustified, such as the taboo against interracial sex. Whilst sex with children is taboo in western cultures it has been, and still is, acceptable in some parts of the world. Recently the west has imposed it's sexual ethics on the Pitcairn Islands where children routinely have sex with adults. One woman told reporters: "I was 13 ... I felt like a big lady. I wanted it" What right do we have to impose our laws on these people? In the West parents can feed their kids junk food and raise them with religious beliefs, why should they not also be allowed to decide on how the child develops sexually? APA (American Psychiatric Association) The APA conducted 59 studies on college students. They discovered that two-thrids of sexually abused men and more than one-quarter of sexually abused women "reported neutral or positive reactions." They concluded that the negative effects of child sexual abuse "were neither pervasive nor typically intense". In the Psychological Bulletin (1998, vol. 124) the American Psychiatric Association stated: "Childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm--and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children's backgrounds. When the sexual contact is not coerced...it may not be harmful at all." The APA also states that abuse "may only constitute a violation of social norms.". Prior to the late 20th century much of the research on pedophilia was based on data from clinical populations, i.e., people who sought help for existing emotional/psychological problems. The APA concludes that "the inevitable result was that the pervasiveness of harm was greatly exaggerated, since only those who perceived themselves as needing treatment were included." What are your opinions of adults having consensual sex with children and teenagers?

You all make good points. What about sedation as an alternative to castration? Would it be justifiable to sedate criminals with drugs to make them more docile?

Can anyone provide me with good arguments supporting the prohibition of drugs? Here are my arguments against the prohibition: 1. Prohibiting drugs increases violence. Murder rates dropped significantly when the USA ended it's prohibition of alcohol in the 1930's. 2. The prohibition of drugs is counter productive, it results in the funding of organized crime, terrorists and corrupt politicians. 3. The prohibition of drugs is hypocrisy, alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than most drugs yet they are legal. The danger posed by drugs has been grossly exaggerated. 4. Many drug users are otherwise law abiding people, criminalizing them is unfair and a waste of police resources. 5. The war on drugs shows no sign of ending and appears to be unwinnable.

A cloned neanderthal could lead a normal life provided it's existance was not made public. A neanderthal would most likely be like a retarded human and could go to a special school etc. I see no ethical reason why we can't clone a neanderthal, humans are already having kids with down syndrome and that's allowed.

The purpose of prison is to reform criminals, however this is not always possible. Many criminals repeatedly break the law and are undeterred by the prospect of punishment. There are several factors believed to contribute to criminal behavior, one important factor being high testosterone levels. It has been proven that testosterone is linked to aggression, in 1990 James Dabbs studied 4,462 men and concluded that "the overall picture among the high-testosterone men is one of delinquency, substance abuse and a tendency toward excess." Even in women, Dabbs found high testosterone levels were related to crimes of unprovoked violence. Statistically men commit significantly more crimes than women, specifically violent crimes. We know that castration can drastically alter an animals behavior, most notably by reducing sex drive and aggression. Not all aggression is caused by testosterone, however the University of California found that in 60% of dogs aggression could be treated with castration. Castration also causes sterility which, considering the inability of prisoners to raise their children, may be an added bonus. Violent criminals destroy their lives and the lives of others, is society not morally obliged to save them from themselves via castration?