When is a Baby a Baby?

1.1 The statement "life begins at conception" is really a tautology. Of course life begins at conception; that is what "conception" means. Therefore, it would seem clear that the occupant of a pregnant woman's uterus is a human being, right from the meeting of egg and sperm. It is not a "clump of cells", despite what some abortion rights activists say. (By the way, I also believe that abortion should be kept legal, but more on this below.)

1.2 Since abortion was legalized, there have arisen smoky fires, worthy of the Biblical Hades, of argumentation on when life and/or "personhood" begins. I hope to shed light in this area, using simple reason based on scientific facts.

1.3 For the moment, let us get away from words like "baby" and "product of conception". Let us use the unbiased term Unborn Biological Entity (UBE). This UBE is the occupant of a pregnant woman's womb. But what should we call it, and how should we regard it? The following explication will be helpful:

1.4

1. The UBE is a living organism. This is determined by its biological activities, such as oxygen and nutrient use, and of course its rapid growth from blastocyst, to embryo, to fetus.
2. The UBE contains genetic material from the woman, but also contains material from a man. Its genotype is therefore unique. The UBE is an unique living organism, not part or property of the woman who carries it.
3. All living organisms have a Linnean, scientific name. For instance, the Maine lobster is Homarus americanus; the Jack-o-Lantern mushroom is Ompholatus olearius. But the UBE is not a crustacean or a fungus; it must have its own scientific name.
4. Since the UBE has only human DNA, it should be classified as Homo sapiens: a human being.

1.5 This conclusion is true, irrespective of the UBE's developmental stage, shape, or whether it has a heartbeat. Arguments over "personhood" are philosophical and can go on forever; they are irrelevant here. Scientifically, the UBE is a human being. And this means that abortion is technically homicide.

1.6 Whether abortion is justifiable homicide, is not pertinent here. Personally, I am in favor of abortion rights, especially because many women would otherwise seek dangerous illegal abortions, or even go the route of the clothes hanger. There is no need for women to suffer this way, if abortion is kept legal. (Incidentally, I also agree with embryonic stem-cell research).

1.7 However, the best way to avoid or reduce the use of abortion, is contraception. The widespread use of contraception in Europe has resulted in its abortion rates being on average lower than those in the US.

1.8 It is amazing that one of the most vociferous opponents of abortion, the Roman Catholic Church, also forbids the use of contraception. It favors "natural family planning", in which a couple will abstain from sex while the woman is most fertile.

1.9 However, a woman's fertile period often coincides naturally with her greatest desire for sex. Therefore the Church is in effect restricting women's enjoyment of the sex act. The Church needs to get its "family planning" regulations in line with human rights.

2.0 To those in the Church or elsewhere, who staunchly oppose abortion rights, I ask: will you go the whole way, and adopt unwanted children? The early Christians often rescued unwanted babies from garbage dumps; it would seem that modern Christians should imitate this laudable charity. No child should be unwanted, as the saying goes.

2.1 But this demands another question. Legally, when is the UBE actually an unborn child, possessed of the right to life? The answer is passing strange.

2.2 In the landmark decision which legalized abortion (Roe vs Wade, 1973), the Supreme Court decided that the viability of the fetus would be the criterion for legal abortion. This viability was defined as the fetus' ability to survive outside the uterus, albeit with medical support.

2.3 Here is where the strangeness really begins. For since medical science is constantly improving, it is pushing back the stage at which the fetus can survive ex-utero. Since premature fetuses are surviving birth at earlier stages, the definition of "baby" should also reach back to the same stage. This would lead to increasing restriction of abortions.

2.4 The answer to this problem for abortion rights advocates, has been to enact laws defending the right to abortion all the way through, in some cases, the full gestation of nine months. In other words, for some advocates, a woman may abort a fully-developed fetus.

2.5 Fortunately this hideous procedure, technically called "intact dilation and extraction", and commonly called partial-birth abortion, was prohibited by an act of Congress (Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, 2003). Now this raises the question: why do many of us cringe in horror at partial-birth abortion, but have little or no problem with earlier-stage abortions? How is the 9 month-old fetus absolutely different than it was at 3 months? Anyway, none of this changes the fact that the unborn biological entity is a human being.

2.6 Yet even here, we find more strangeness. In Dorchester, MA, April 2010, one woman assaulted another, and tragically the victim lost her UBE. Under Massachusetts law, said an official, "a homicide charge may be brought in the death of an unborn child if the fetus would have survived outside the mother’s womb". "Unborn child?" "Fetus?" The law is clearly unclear about this.

2.7 So, when is a baby really a baby? Given that a pregnant woman can choose to abort at almost any stage, from blastocyst to well-developed fetus, I must conclude that it is entirely the woman's decision.

2.8 I have never heard a pregnant woman, who intends to keep her baby, call it anything else but a baby. No one says, "I'm having a fetus". I suppose women could have tee-shirts made with "Fetus" and a downward-pointing arrow, but I have never seen this. Women have babies, not fetuses. However, there are other opinions as to when a fetus ends and a baby begins.

2.9 Some people maintain that birth is the best place to draw the line, that only a postnatal baby is really a baby. All right, what happens at birth that distinguishes a fetus from a baby? The fetus simply enters this (rather cold and noisy) world. It may not begin breathing for several minutes postnatal, and again consider the condition and medical needs of the premature baby.

3.0 Going further, when exactly is the fetus-baby born? When its head appears (crowning), or when its entire body comes out? No one seems to know. In general, the decision of what constitutes a baby is left with the woman.

3.1 Beyond the strangeness of allowing pregnant women to make life-or-death decisions, there is the legal position of men. To my knowledge, nowhere in the USA is a man allowed to prohibit a woman from having an abortion; neither may he force her to abort. He may not even be told the gender of the fetus-baby, until the mother agrees that it be known.

3.2 This means that the fetus-baby is solely under the legal power of the woman. Since the man has no legal power, he also should be held harmless, and have no responsibility for the results of the pregnancy.

3.3 The far-reaching implications of a man's apparent lack of reproductive rights and responsibilities, are the subject for another discussion. As far as reason and science are concerned, human life begins at conception. Yet as far as the law of the land is concerned, no matter how irrational it seems, a baby is a baby when its mother says so.

How to Take Back the Streets

1.1 Find thugs[1] and eliminate[2] them.

[1] Thugs refers to active predators, gang members engaged in violent crime, Islamists, or any other ideological group bent on violence, and anyone who attacks or molests innocent people.

[2] Eliminate means to separate them from the public, in such a way that they will not ever attack civilized people again. Thugs can be eliminated through incarceration and hard labor, where they will produce useful items for the civilized; deportation to their native countries; or execution. For further information, Google "Thugee", and see how the British in India eliminated the original thugs.

The Vital Right of Self-Defense

1.1 There are two rights enshrined in the United States Constitution, which I consider vital to a civilized society. These rights are guaranteed in the First and Second Amendments (1A and 2A):

1A: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2A: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

1.2 These two amendments form the basis of our liberty as Americans. In 1A, we have freedom of expression. That is, American citizens can believe, say, study, write, publish, or gather to discuss, as well as peacefully protest, or present to the government, any fact or opinion they like.

1.3 The only restriction is that the expression not be physically threatening, as for example yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Also, incitements to violence, such as "kill those who insult Mohammed", are not guaranteed free speech. With the exception of physical threats, the government is restrained from prohibiting any expression of US citizens.

1.4 The Second Amendment also restrains the government. In 2A, the right of citizens to maintain and carry weapons, including but not limited to, firearms, is reserved to the people. The stated reason is to support a "well-regulated militia", and there is much debate about the meaning of this.

1.5 I suggest the debate over "militia", or the rest of the amendment, is irrelevant. The right to have weapons is based on self-defense. Without the right to self-defense, it is hard to imagine why we would need to defend the state. If we did not have the right to defend ourselves, what else could we defend?

1.6 Anyway the state is an extension of self, and family, and community. Therefore 2A should be read as a right to bear arms in defense of our selves, families, neighbors, and homeland.

1.7 Unfortunately, some of the states do not comply with this reasoning. They limit or prohibit the carrying of weapons by law-abiding citizens. This puts them at odds with the Constitution as well as common sense.

1.8 If I must have a license to carry a weapon in self-defense (2A), will I soon need a license to speak freely (1A)? I repeat that these two rights are fundamental to a civilized society, and I am proud that the Founders enshrined them in the Constitution.

1.8 Indeed, without a right to self-defense, it is hard to make sense of the Declaration of Independence' words, that "life" is an "inalienable right". Self-defense is a law of nature. Whether the rattlesnake's fangs or the cat's claws, all creatures that have enemies also have weapons, and are able to use them to effect. All organisms defend themselves- that is, if they want to live.

1.9 All people should be able and ready to defend ourselves, that is if we want to speak and act freely. Our precious right of free expression is guarded by the ability to defend it.

2.0 As for me, in America I have the freedom to burn a Qur'an, or a Bible, or a Flag for that matter; and the right to carry a weapon backs me up. Without weapons, I can do nothing but submit to any predator or tyrannical ideology. With a weapon, and with the weapons of my neighbors around me, I can live in relative safety, and fearlessly speak my mind.

2.1 To those who demand "gun control", who say we should not bear arms, I ask: who protects you? Is it not the thousands of men (and women) who do bear arms? Is it not those unappreciated ranks of armed citizens, who stand and fight, and sometimes die, for you? One of the ironies of American life is that pacifists are protected by gun-bearers.

2.2 I am speaking of police officers, and air marshals, and soldiers and sailors and Marines, and armed civilians also: all those who do "keep and bear arms", ready to defend this nation and the lives of their fellow citizens, including you who protest against "gun violence". Please take a moment from your pacifistic preaching to remember them, who bear arms so you do not have to.

Tolerance is a Two-Way Street

1.1 I had a vigorous discussion with a dear friend about this subject. It seems that many people, when confronted with aggressive ideologies such as Islam, seek to compromise or negotiate, rather than stand up on their rights.

1.2 All people have the right to express themselves (non-violently) and to defend their freedoms and persons. These two are self-evident as rights of man, and are enshrined in the first two amendments to the US Constitution:

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

1.3 Self-expression and self-defense (necessarily implied in defense of the State) are again basic human rights. Freedom of speech is meaningless without the means to defend it.

1.4 Note very carefully that I am advocating self-defense, the defense of innocents, and the defense of State, and nothing else. Since I am not advocating criminal violence, no one can suggest that I have "incited" anyone to violence.

1.5 It is tragic that European countries often do not have constitutional rights to self-defense. In other cases, European citizens simply do not have the will to bear arms. If they did, they would not be terrorized by Islamist thugs. They would also not be terrorized by local thugs such as Anders Breivik. If Norwegians were like Floridians, the people on Utoya island would have stopped Breivik very quickly, and saved many lives.

1.7 All of this means simply that we have a right to live, and to believe as we do, and others have an obligation to respect those rights. If we are to put up with someone else's religion, they must put up with ours.

1.8 This is the true meaning of "tolerance". It is most definitely not agreeing with our opponents or trying to appease them, as some people falsely teach. To the contrary, tolerance is allowing our opponents to live and believe as they do, despite that we disagree. Tolerance is a truce, not a compromise. (Tolerance also allows civil discourse and debate.)

1.9 Now a consortium of Muslims have obtained land in New York city, for the purpose of building a mosque and Islamic cultural center, close to the site of the 9-11-2001 attack by Islamic terrorists. This "Ground Zero Mosque" (GZM) is sited on land on which the landing gear of one of the 9-11 airplanes fell. It really is in effect on Ground Zero.

2.0 In light of this, and since the Muslims plan to open the GZM on the tenth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, one of two things is true: either the Muslims are making a memorial in the name of peace between us, or else they are erecting a triumphal mosque as they have done on the sites of churches in many nations. The answer to that question is not pertinent here.

2.1 What matters, a so many say, is tolerance. Now, with all due respect to those who died on 9-11, and to their families, and all others impacted by the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, I say this. I am willing to tolerate the mosque being built on Ground Zero or practically anywhere else. I will tolerate Muslims doing anything legal and civil in this nation.

2.2 Only one thing I would require in return. Muslims are building a mosque on American land against the will of 70% of the American people, many of whom regard Ground Zero as sacred. Therefore, let a church be built in the sacred city of Mecca.

2.3 In fact, for every mosque being built in these United States, let one church, synagogue, or secular cultural center, be built in an Islamic nation. Let Muslims tolerate our beliefs as we tolerate theirs.

2.4 My dear friend's objection to this was that Islamic nations do not have freedom of religion, and so cannot be expected to tolerate ours. Tolerance, she wrote, "is NOT a two-way street".

2.5 Yes it is. Any amicable relationship is a two-way street. Marriage, for example, requires that the partners share and agree on many things, and "agree to disagree" on others. Marriage without tolerance is abusive.

2.6 Tolerance, the real kind I mean, definitely includes relationships between nations. If Muslims want freedom of religion for themselves in this or any nation, they must extend the same freedom to the citizens of those nations.

2.7 It does not matter if their Islamic laws do not support freedom of religion; these laws will need to change to reflect human rights. All the vociferous claims that "Islam teaches tolerance", etc., are empty lies unless Muslims respect the rights of others.

2.8 Tolerance is definitely a two-way street, and the only alternative to tolerance is intolerance. If the Islamic world cannot learn to tolerate people of other beliefs, there will indeed be intolerance, unrest, and worse. This I say not as a threat, but as a plea for mutual respect against the grim threat of war.

Westboro Baptists: True Christians

1.1 The Westboro Baptist Church, headed by Fred Phelps, who preaches "God hates fags" and similar misanthropic messages, has been harshly criticized by other Christians. Some have even denied that Westboro Baptists, because of their hateful statements and such activities as protesting at solders' funerals, are not Christians at all.

1.2 Since I am no longer a Christian, I am no authority on who is or is not Christian. However, I can remember what the church of Christ taught me, and will use that reasoning here.

1.3 So: if the Westboro church is not Christian, what about your church? In other words, if Westboro is not really Christian because they are wrong in their attitude toward homosexuals, then all Baptists may not be Christians because they are wrong in their "once saved, always saved" attitude.

1.4 Jesus plainly said to the Laodicean church, the entire church, "I will spew you out of my mouth".There are many other references to show that once saved is not always saved, but the simplest proof is that Christians have a relationship with God, and relationships have obligations on both sides. Salvation is God's obligation, and obedience is ours. "Once saved, always saved" is false, and I can find false things in almost any church.

1.5 But if hating gays really means you are not a Christian, what if you hate Africans enough to enslave them? If practicing slavery means you are not a Christian, then the entire antebellum South was not Christian. Also, some Christians in the Bible practiced slavery, since Paul told masters not to be harsh with their slaves.

1.6 What if you hate not only homosexuals, but also witches, and even burn them alive? If people who burn homosexuals and witches cannot be Christians, then the entire medieval church was not Christian. Most of us today would agree that a person who hates Jews cannot be a Christian. But if antisemites cannot be Christians, then most of Christian history is full of non-Christians.

1.7 Therefore whether we like them or not, the Westboro people are indeed Christians. Rather than condemn them, it may be better simply to refute their behavior from the Bible itself.

1.8 Now it is true that in the Old Testament, God called homosexuality "an abomination". It is also true that the Sodomites wanted to "know" the young men in Lot's house. The word "know" does mean to have sex, because Lot then offers his daughters, that the men could "know" them. There are, of course, sleazy and specious arguments against the meaning of these verses, but they still say plainly what they say.

1.9 Also the apostle Paul, speaking to the Roman church, left no doubt when he referred to men "burning in their lust for one another...and receiving the due penalty in their bodies". I know that some people try to fudge this verse also, but again the meaning is plain. It is up to Christians to accept what the Bible says.

2.0 For all their hateful speech, at least the Westboro Baptists accept what the Bible does say about homosexuality itself. And of course the scientific and social evidence that homosexual orientation is normal does not bother them at all. Actually, being Bible believers, they are not interested in any factual evidence that contradicts the Bible.

2.1 Since homosexuality is an immutable trait, manifesting very early in a person's life, it is likely that people are born with this orientation. This presents Westboro (and other like-minded Christians) with the following dilemma. Since homosexuals are born that way, one of two things is true. Either God made homosexuals and we must "reinterpret" the Bible to accept them*, or else the Bible is just plain wrong.

2.2 Perhaps the Westboro people would also be interested to know that as Christians they are under the New Testament, not the Old, and that no one in the New Testament uses hateful, abusive language as they do. In the spirit and practice of the New Testament, following Jesus and the apostles, sinners (such as homosexuals) should be gently taught the Gospel in the hope that they will "believe unto salvation". The overarching principles of New Testament teachings are not hatred and condemnation, but love and forgiveness through the grace of God.

2.3 However, even if Westboro is guilty of ignoring the main message of the Bible, at least they do not fly airplanes into Gay bars while shouting, "Jesus is great!" At least they do not blow themselves up at military funerals. In fact I am not familiar with any church that practices terrorism. But I digress.

2.4 In sum, Westboro Baptists, despite their awful intolerance and disrespectful behavior, are certainly obedient Christians. They believe the Bible is God's Word and they obey exactly the parts of it they like.

*See also "The Evolution of Religion".

Girl Model$

1.1 This is a companion essay to "Jailbait". Recently, the fashion world has promoted increasingly younger female models. There have been Zippora Seven, a New Zealand beauty of 16 years, Miley Cyrus, modeling at 15, and Miranda Kerr, who first modeled at 14.

1.2 A heated debate has since arisen over the "sexualization of children" in the fashion industry, but as in most heated debates, there are more heat and smoke, than light. Recently the debate has really flared since French Vogue published photographs of Thylane Blondeau, who is 10 years old.

1.3 Now Blondeau is an undeveloped girl, not a filled-out teenager, yet she is shown wearing adult women's styles and makeup. Not only is she posed provocatively; in one shot she is topless except for strings of beads. This is really too much.

1.4 Thylane Blondeau has a beautiful face, but she is a beautiful little girl. She should be modeling little girl clothes and playing with dolls. She has no place wearing adult women's styles or posing provocatively for pedophiles* to drool over.

1.5 Zippora Seven and Miley Cyrus are physically developed enough to be considered young women, and their behavior is very mature. A little stick of a girl like Thylane Blondeau belongs on the playground, playing with bunnies, not acting like a Playboy Bunny.

1.6 Much the same criticism can be leveled at prepubescent beauty pageants, in which little girls are encouraged, often by their mothers, to dress, wear makeup, and pose as if they were mature women. These pageants, like fashion modeling, put the girls out as pedophile bait.

1.7 In fact, such improper presentations of small children make pedophilia seem almost normal. Since the adults involved are so eager to display their daughters' charms, why should anyone complain if a man gets excited?

1.8 Now, what could cause adults to display innocent girls this way? I will assume their parents and the modeling staff are not themselves pedophiles. The answer lies elsewhere, with some other inducement.

1.7 The following episode will shed some light. A few years ago, I had the experience of communicating with a few "underage" girls online. I was merely asking why some girls are attracted to older men. I was not in any way suggesting a relationship between us. I have toured a jail and have no desire to return.

1.8 A few of the young women were helpful, but one in particular called me a "creep" and alerted her mother. This woman treated me to the whole "Momma Bear" routine, full of righteous indignation. She told me that my weblog would be investigated by the police; however, they apparently found nothing illegal. I invite anyone to study my blog or any of my writings.

1.9 This whole situation presents a bizarre and troubling dichotomy. On one hand, adults loudly claim to "protect children against predators", even when the "child" is a sexually mature young woman and the "predator" is an innocent investigator. On the other hand, the same adults are perfectly willing, even eager, to promote their girls as fashion models. What could possibly induce parents to expose their children this way?

2.0 Let us cut to the chase. The only difference between Joe Average online and a modeling agent is that the agent will pay for the privilege. An average man cannot promise a girl much beyond a relationship and some gifts; a modeling agency promises lots of lucre. As the song says, "it must be the money".

2.1 I should not have to say how immoral this is. But since so many parents, especially Moms, loudly claim to protect their girls, and yet are more than willing to expose the same girls to sexual pressures in the fashion industry, I will say it in unmistakable terms: these parents are selling their children.

2.2 As if this were not enough, when the results of teenage (or younger) girls' photo shoots are displayed online, the women who approve of girls modeling defend the practice as beautifying and innocent. Yet if a man makes any sexual reference to the girl model$, they call him "perv" and "predator" and for all I know, threaten legal action. This is a fine way of protecting children.

2.3 I am not sure which is more disturbing: provocatively dressed pre-pubescent girls, or the hypocrisy of parents who claim to protect their children until the fashion agent comes knocking.

2.4 I do want to emphasize that the problem is not the girls' chronological age, but their sexual maturity. Zippora Seven is obviously in a different category from Thylane Blondeau. In any case, the solution is clear: prohibit the use of pre-pubescent girls (or boys) in the adult fashion industry. Period.

*Note: pedophilia is sexual desire for pre-pubescent children. Desire for sexually mature young people is not pedophilia; it is correctly called ephebophilia or nymphophilia. See "Jailbait".

"Jailbait"

1.1 First of all, in essence, sex is natural, normal, and good. All of us (absent artificial insemination) are the result of a sexual encounter. There is nothing to be ashamed of in desiring a sex partner. The real issue is not some archaic morality, but the wellbeing of the partners.

1.2 I say this because the whole Age of Consent (AOC) debate smells of sex-hatred, erotophobia. Even though we know that sexual desire is basically good, I predict that some of you will become angry, defensive, and self-righteous in the next few minutes. Please use reason and keep your emotions in check. I promise to do the same.

1.3 When a person (male or female) becomes sexually mature, he or she often becomes sexually active. Age of Consent laws are based on the premise that these "underage" people cannot give mature consent for sexual activity, and that therefore it is wrong and illegal to have sex with them.

1.4 Now if a young person, say 15 years of age, is sexually active already, then he or she is already giving consent to sex. If no one may have sex with them, then they may not have sex with each other. If both partners are "underage", neither can give consent: both are breaking the law and both should be punished. Strangely, I have never heard of this happening.

1.5 However, I am aware of cases in which a young man has been arrested and prosecuted for having sex with his girlfriend, even though she was just one year younger than himself. A young man becomes a "predator" or even "pedophile" when he turns 18 before his girlfriend does[1]. This is grossly unjust.

1.6 The AOC situation becomes even more unjust and strange when different countries have different ages of consent. For example, in the USA it is either 16 or 18 yo, depending on the state. In France, the AOC is 15, and in Colombia it is 14. This indicates that no one really knows what is the "right" age to begin giving consent to sex.

1.8 Consider the following: if a man lives in France or Sweden, he can have a 15 yo sexual liaison with no problem. If he attempted that in the USA, regardless of the girl's sexual activity, he would be imprisoned and treated as a pariah for life. Even in some of the States, if his liaison is 16, there is no legal problem with their relationship. (Taking intimate photographs is another matter.)

1.9 Please spare the tough "Momma Bear" talk and all the righteous indignation; young people are having sex whether you like it or not. And some of them do prefer older partners. There are even Internet websites on which girls give each other advice to attract their teachers. These "underage" young women are doing more than giving consent; they are initiating liaisons with older men. We need to drop the moral facade and face the reality of intergenerational sex.

2.0 To those who say, "eew, gross", or "perverted": the same was said about homosexuality, and before that, about interracial relationships. Both of these were (and by some ignorant people still are) considered abnormal or evil. In the USA, homosexuality was actually considered a mental illness until 1973.

2.1 To those who suggest that intergenerational sex is inherently abusive, or damaging to the younger partner: young people can abuse each other both physically and emotionally. Relationships between teenagers can be very damaging, as I know.

2.2 I have no personal stake in the Age of Consent debate, since I am physically out of the game. However, I do have a stake in truth, especially where it affects so many other people's lives. Therefore I will reemphasize: if young people cannot give consent for sex with an older person, then they cannot give consent to anyone. This presents the question, should young people be held accountable?

2.3 If we hold young people accountable for shoplifting or any other crime, we should hold them accountable for "underage" sex. If not, why? Please do not beg the question by assuming that sex is acceptable, but shoplifting is not. The issue is accountability. Do we hold "underage" people accountable for their behavior, or not?

2.4 Returning to intergenerational sex itself: there is one substantial argument against it. Young people's brains are too immature to make adult decisions. Barbara Strauch, in her book The Primal Teen, (First Anchor Books Edition, 2004), shows that brain development is not complete until approximately 25 years of age. Modern neuroscience explains why teenagers take risks with so many things such as alcohol, drugs, and sex. No matter how adult their bodies look, they are children in their minds.

2.5 Both girls and boys reach full physical development long before their 25th birthday. A boy reaches fertility at about 10-11 yo, a girl perhaps 13-15. Now consider the case of the Japanese swimsuit model, Saaya Irie. She has a body many Western women would envy, and most men would desire. Saaya Irie is 11 years of age. Should she be allowed to have a boyfriend? Should she be modeling at all [2]?

2.6 Incidentally, the lag between young peoples' body and brain maturation presents a conundrum for those who believe in creationism or "Intelligent Design". Teenage boys in particular have a sex drive like a wild animal, and by 15 years of age, girls can be as fecund as rabbits. This means the "intelligent designer" has designed a developmental disaster. If he were a human designer, he would be fired.

2.7 Therefore, I must correct myself. In light of the neuroscientific and behavioral evidence, I no longer see intergenerational sex as appropriate. Adults should not be having sex with young people; young people should not be having sex at all.

1. Getting it straight: the correct term for attraction to sexually mature young people is ephebophilia or nymphophilia. It is not "pedo"anything.

2. See Girl Model$