Spot The Difference, Consensual Adult And Adult...

In England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales we have to be 16 or older to have homosexual (gay) or heterosexual (straight) sex. A boy who has sex with a girl under 16 is breaking the law. Even if she agrees. If she is 13-15, the boy could go to prison for two years. If she is under 13 he could be sentenced to life imprisonment. A girl aged 16 or over who has sex with a boy under 16 can be prosecuted for indecent assault. (BBC Advice)

Originally in the 19th century, the consent age for sex was 12 in England. Through different acts, this was eventually raised to 16 in 1885. In 1917 a bill raising the age of consent in Great Britain and Ireland from 16 to 17 was defeated by only one vote. The male homosexual age of consent in the United Kingdom was set at 21 in the Sexual Offences Act of 1967, lowered to 18 in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and then finally lowered equally to 16 in England and Scotland in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act of 2000.

So why does the legal age for sex in the UK still remain at 16? Admittedly everyone matures at different rates, but why is 16 considered mature enough to start having sex? In a single rape case (where the crime has only been committed once), these are the punishments; 

Starting Points: 10 years custody if the victim is under 13

Sentencing Ranges: 8-13 years custody

Starting Points: 8 years custody if the victim is 13 or over but under 16

Sentencing Ranges: 6-11 years custody

Starting Points: 5 years custody if the victim is 16 or over

Sentencing Ranges: 4-8 years custody

Rape is rape no matter what your age is, but the punishments loosen up the older the victim is. Is this because its not as emotionally, mentally or physically damaging for an over 16 to be raped than it is for someone under 16? I don't think so. Should the legal age of consent be raised, and if so, to what age? How can you put a "correct" age on something that varies so widely among different people. I conducted a small social study among my friends to find out (anonymously) the age they were the first time they had sex. The majority answer was between the ages of 15-17. However a few friends did admit that they didn't feel ready and some even said that they only reason they had sex was because of peer pressure. Some friends even admitted that they felt used and even unloved after their first time.

People will always have sex regardless of their age if that's what they want to. I don't think any government power can stop that. But what the government does have the power to stop is rapists getting away with their crimes. People have had numerous different experiences of sex and, depending on whether they were good or bad experiences, that will then effect their view on the legal age being raised. One female friend of mine feels that based on previous experiences she would like the age to be raised, simply to give others the protection she wished she could of had. Yet, a male friend of mine thinks that the legal age is alright where it is. He says: 

"that's the sort of age when people should start to experience that sort of thing provided they're sensible and if they're not then they're going to regret it"

In many ways he's right. If you are with a person that you love and care about, who's to say when you're at the right stage to have sex?

As always, please comment and tell me your thoughts on this latest blog.

No Church In The Wild

There are some scary facts here; around 300 people out of 1,000 will experience mental health problems every year in Britain. That over 42,000 in the UK are affected by lung cancer, over 8,000 by pancreatic cancer and over 9,000 people in the UK are suffering from brain tumours. If you factor in all the different causes of spinal cord injuries, figures show that over one million people are now paralysed for life this year alone. So why is euthanasia still illegal in the UK?

The British House of Lords Committee defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering" but isn't that the point? In the Netherlands, however, euthanasia is seen as "a termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient". But it's interesting that if we had a pet that was in pain the first thing we would do is take it to the vets and if the vet turned round to you and said: 'your dog/cat/pet is not going to have a very good quality of life if it continues to live' most of us that care for our pets and hate to see them in pain would have them put down. I've already experienced this with one of our very first family dog's, he had severe epilepsy and just wasn't able to live his life like a happy dog, so we made the heartbreaking decision to have him put down. 

Of course everyone is entitled to their own choice for how they want to die, but people should at least be offered the option of euthanasia. I pray to God that I never get to the stage where I don't have control of my body anymore, but if I do, I want either a family member, husband, child or whoever to make the decision for me. I don't think that many people want to die in pain and suffering. However, when a patient is diagnosed with cancer that the doctor does not think they will recover from, their morphine intake is slowly increased until the day comes that their body cannot survive with that much morphine in it's system, and in cases like that, the patient will eventually die. But even if some see that as a more desirable choice than "assisted suicide" the people are still suffering and not fully able to enjoy the remaining days of their life.

Of course the practical arguments against euthanasia would be that it undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives, it also will eventually discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill. Many people argue that there is no way of regulating the use of euthanasia, I'm not saying that it should just be given to every terminally ill person, what I'm saying is that it should at least be offered as a last resort option if that is what a patient wants.

The religious arguments towards euthanasia are much harder to get a grip on unless you are a believer, they say that life is precious because God created us, therefore human life should be protected and preserved whatever happens, because we should not interfere with God's plans. But what's a God to a non-believer? 

There is no wrong or right answer to this post, but in my own personal opinion, I think that euthanasia should be offered as a more dignified alternative to dying. But please, tell me what you think in the comment section below.