On his way to get milk, if your son stops along his way, a movie theater won't let him in to see an NC-17 rated film, and they won't let him see an R-rated film alone without your consent. A video game retailer won't sell him an AO-rated game, nor will they sell him an M-rated game without your consent. Online game marketplaces have parental controls and gates which rival those used to block streaming of R+ rated commercial films. Why should the law have to double enforce this already deemed successful institutionalized self-policing?

I think, then, that it is the duty of the parent to prepare them for those decisions deemed likely to be encountered. Restricting the potential moral dilemmas that a person (child) may encounter does no more to prepare them for that eventuality than does exposing them to the risk of that experience without adequate preparation.

If we protect them from making difficult decisions when they're 12, they'll be forced to learn to make difficult decisions when they're 18 or 21 or 22, when bad decisions have MUCH worse consequences.