On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:35:37 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The point that was made was not, since children are not allowed to > > > participate in prostitution, there is something wrong with it. The > point > > > is that it isn't just one more job. Being a soldier isn't just one > more > > > job; the job entails having people try to kill you. It's considered > too > > > risky for children to make a rational choice as to whether they want to > > > risk their lives to serve their country. Coal mining is not as > dangerous > > > and so 16 year olds can work in coal mines. > > > > There are 16 year old coal miners, soldiers and sex workers. You > > weren't talking about 16 year olds though, were you? You were talking > > about under 16s, children, which is an entirely different matter. If > > your point was simply that not all jobs are the same I wonder why you > > felt you had to make it. > > 16 is the age limit for work in the US. Elsewhere, there are 10 year old > soldiers and prostitutes, and factory workers. Indeed, I know one of the > surviving "Lost Boys", he goes to our church. The point is that sex is not > just one more activity. As is obvious from conversation further upthread this is not what I and most other participants believe. I replied to your post however because you dragged children into the conversation and then seemed to pretend you hadn't. Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
