Statutory rape is still rape.
It cannot really be regarded as rape because the proper meaning of rape is by force. Statutory rape says it is a nonforcible sexual act. The true meaning and wrong in what is called statutory rape are where an older person is seen as taking advantage of a younger person in a consensual sexual act. They regard the younger person not being able to understand what they are doing and therefore being taken advantage of. So in that sense, it is wrong anyway but not wrong as a rape act by definition.
In some common law jurisdictions,
statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent (the age required to legally consent to the behaviour).
Statutory rape - Wikipedia
Still, we should be able to investigate the true intent of this law and whether it is justified. So as we can see the law is questioned about its logic as some underage people are mature enough to understand what is going on and some adults are not mature enough to know what is going on. The intent is to stop an adult taking advantage of a young person who is not capable of knowing what they are getting themselves into. In that sense it is wrong and we can apply the science to seeing how immature people can be taken advantage of by unscrupulous adults. This law would border on paedophilia because there will be an age limit that would make an adult guilty of paedophilia.
Rationale of statutory rape laws
Statutory rape laws are based on the premise that an individual is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse until that person reaches a certain age. The law mandates that even if he or she willingly engages in sexual intercourse, the sex is not consensual.
[13] Critics argue that an age limit cannot be used to determine the ability to consent to sex, since a young teenager might possess enough social sense to make informed and mature decisions about sex, while some adults might never develop the ability to make mature choices about sex, as even many mentally healthy individuals remain naive and easily manipulated throughout their lives.
[14]
Statutory rape - Wikipedia
It doesn’t have to be spanking; if you physically restrain your child that is child abuse. If your child wants to go to his friend's house, and you physically prevent him from doing that, that is abuse. If he goes, and you lock the door so he can’t return, that is child neglect.
I am not sure of all the details of what is classed as an abuse or not but I am sure there will be some way of determining this. We use to think that belting a child was good and now we know it psychologically damages the child. So who knows what is regarded as Ok now will be determined as bad as well. There can also be rare exceptions just like killing in self-defence. If you restrain your child from running out onto the road and accidentally bruise them in doing so this is hardly child abuse. If you did not stop them it can be regarded as neglect or abuse so the exception can be made. But if you just grab your child in the headlock to stop them from leaving the house for no good reason then obviously thing is overdoing it and wrong.
When we look at each case we should be able to determine a logical and/or scientifically reasoned position. Some situations may be more difficult to determine at that time but that does not mean there is no determinable position to be found. We just have not found it yet and maybe with more investigation or scientific discovery.
Not everything that is put under the category of rape, abuse, or neglect should be put under those categories, and they are not all addressed by science. But even if they were, that doesn’t make it morally wrong.
Why not, if the act hurts the person and causes them to have a less quality of life, be traumatised, physically damaged, become depressed, anxious and scared of certain things which affect their quality of life why would that not be regarded as morally bad. Moral acts can only be done against humans and therefore it is logical that we measure moral acts by what is done to humans by the common logical standards we know about what makes a human happy or damaged.
When the virgin willfully allowed herself to be thrown into the volcano to appease the Gods, she was brainwashed into thinking she was sacrificing herself for a greater cause, and securing herself a ticket to paradise as well! How is this different?
A bit like the terrorist who straps bombs to themselves and blows up little children in the delusion of gaining 40 virgins when they meet Allah. The problem is this is a delusion and can be shown to be through the sciences. But also through the act contradicting their own beliefs as the thing that they claim will happen often does not happen and in fact, the opposite happens. IE Terrorist blows up their own people without discrimination and they also do the things they are blowing others up for which shows it is not really about right and wrong. This religious acts are not based in reality and can be dangerous thinking just like a mentally ill person can believe that they can fly when jumping off a building.
It doesn’t matter if it is a child or an adult; any type of human sacrifice for religious purposes is WRONG!!! Do you agree?
A father who sacrifices his life to save his son from drowning is not wrong because the greater act of saving a life is a greater moral right. When people sacrifice babies to gods to appease them this can be seen as a delusion gone too far. There is no logical reason for it that can be justified. You cannot prove that the god is there or will be appeased to justify taking a child's life. But you can see logically how a father or person will give their life to save their child. There are biological and psychological reasons that cause a parent to protect their offspring.
Soldiers don’t sacrifice their lives for their country, as a matter of fact, they get specialized training and equipment to make sure they don’t die!
So what about when a soldier goes into a situation that is determined to be too high a risk to save his buddies. What about a father who runs into a burning building to save his child.
