Dear Editor,
The agreement for the age of consent should be at 18 or 19, instead of 16.
Not making this change is a big mistake, a national blunder in the face of rampant, wild and illicit sexual activity among the youth. You did not need wise King Solomon to tell you that you have made a grave and terrible mistake.
Despite the fact that many teenagers are on a passionate and rampage pursuit to exercise their love zone to feel like men and women — before the time — they should not be facilitated by a loose law.
To combat the "fall from grace" we must remember this little token: "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." There is a standard in this little token, in being on good footing, in becoming good, responsible citizens. The disciplined teenagers who are coming from good homes will not go with the flow, or fall prey to the age of consent. They will object against it and will not be pressured into having sex at such an early age.
One must ask the nail-biting questions: Who gave the authority for the age of consent to be at 16? Is it the State or the ruling bodies? What really prompted them to make such a silly mistake, or such an unwise decision?
At 16, a young girl is still in a juvenile mindset and is not yet fully mature. She is incapable of being a good mother to a child, especially if there is no one to guide her.
The age of consent does not only mean the go-ahead to engage in sex, it also implies being able to handle responsibility, etc, and mishaps will follow: unwanted pregnancy, etc.
Allowing teenagers to indulge in sexual intercourse at 16, when there are so many fatherless children, and irresponsible men can backfire, which can result in a serious clamour for counselling and guidance. Sixteen-year-olds should be preparing themselves and their minds to get to the next level by pursuing academic skills and developing maturity.
Giving liberty to becoming sexually active at 16 can contradict moral conducts and principles. For example, from a religious standpoint, you say, "OK, girls, you are free to make love at 16, but be careful and use protection", and you did not say to them: get married first the low age limit is a push for a fornication spree. At this early age of consent, there maybe a multiplication of unwanted pregnancies and a possible hike in the abortion rate to cover up mistakes.
According to how I see things, the most appropriate time to get involved in a sexual relationship, and start thinking about marriage and raising a family, is when you are in your 20s, 30s and up.
Donald J Mckoy
donaldmckoy2010@hotmail.com
16 means fornication spree
-->
The agreement for the age of consent should be at 18 or 19, instead of 16.
Not making this change is a big mistake, a national blunder in the face of rampant, wild and illicit sexual activity among the youth. You did not need wise King Solomon to tell you that you have made a grave and terrible mistake.
Despite the fact that many teenagers are on a passionate and rampage pursuit to exercise their love zone to feel like men and women — before the time — they should not be facilitated by a loose law.
To combat the "fall from grace" we must remember this little token: "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." There is a standard in this little token, in being on good footing, in becoming good, responsible citizens. The disciplined teenagers who are coming from good homes will not go with the flow, or fall prey to the age of consent. They will object against it and will not be pressured into having sex at such an early age.
One must ask the nail-biting questions: Who gave the authority for the age of consent to be at 16? Is it the State or the ruling bodies? What really prompted them to make such a silly mistake, or such an unwise decision?
At 16, a young girl is still in a juvenile mindset and is not yet fully mature. She is incapable of being a good mother to a child, especially if there is no one to guide her.
The age of consent does not only mean the go-ahead to engage in sex, it also implies being able to handle responsibility, etc, and mishaps will follow: unwanted pregnancy, etc.
Allowing teenagers to indulge in sexual intercourse at 16, when there are so many fatherless children, and irresponsible men can backfire, which can result in a serious clamour for counselling and guidance. Sixteen-year-olds should be preparing themselves and their minds to get to the next level by pursuing academic skills and developing maturity.
Giving liberty to becoming sexually active at 16 can contradict moral conducts and principles. For example, from a religious standpoint, you say, "OK, girls, you are free to make love at 16, but be careful and use protection", and you did not say to them: get married first the low age limit is a push for a fornication spree. At this early age of consent, there maybe a multiplication of unwanted pregnancies and a possible hike in the abortion rate to cover up mistakes.
According to how I see things, the most appropriate time to get involved in a sexual relationship, and start thinking about marriage and raising a family, is when you are in your 20s, 30s and up.
Donald J Mckoy
donaldmckoy2010@hotmail.com
16 means fornication spree
-->