There are plenty of unethical outcomes available in the "let babies vote" scenario, to weigh against the allegedly-unethical scenario of having a voting age.
I guess my point boils down to simply: Why? There's arguments both ways, what's the reasoning?
The reason is loki's fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.
For legal purposes we simply have to pick a line.
But regardless if the exact location of that line is arbitrary, it is still useful none the less.
There is no real issue with having an arbitrary line, if it is impractical to not have an arbitrary line, and useful none the less.
To give more obvious examples, we can take the drinking age, or the age of consent. Those line are arbitrary, but are still useful none the less.
If (as I assume) our goal is to restrict voting to those deemed mature and of sound mind, then I'd expect to see similar laws enforcing such restrictions in other sectors of the populace. But we don't see that! Instead we see laws explicitly granting the right to vote to the elderly and mentally disabled. It's possible to end up in a situation where an individual is deemed mentally unfit to manage their own finances or medical decisions, but still able to influence the governance of an entire nation.
I'm personally quite fascinated by this. Maybe my assumptions are wrong! Wouldn't that be neat? My goal is not to suggest that our policy is bad or wrong, it's to suggest that the "allegedly unethical scenario of having a voting age" is actually quite complex and interesting!
Dumb example: Should Brittney Spears have the right to vote?
Interesting example: Should felons?
It's about as logical as saying, "we put people in jail, therefore it's ok that you go to jail." The nuance and reasoning is the point.
My conclusion: No. Children should not be able to do those things. Therefore, there are likely other things they should not be allowed to do.
I honestly can't believe we're even having this discussion.
The driving example is a bit disingenuous because, in the US at least, driving isn't conceptualized as a "right" - it's formulated as a privilege. The drinking example is closer, but that's the right to self-determination. I don't suspect that you believe children have zero self-determination, nor do I suspect that you believe that one person's right to vote should be based on everyone in a particular class.
It would be unconscionable to say, "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because some women can't make good decisions." I simply extend the same unconscionablity to children.
I of course disagree with that statement, but it would imply that some women _can_ make good decisions.
To carry that back to the original argument, you are implying there are children out there who are capable of participating in political discourse.
I disagree.
It's starting to feel a bit like I'm feeding the trolls here, so I'll let this be my final reply. Have a good day.
We apply this argument in all kinds of cases that are super-uncontroversial so it’s surprising to hear that it makes someone uncomfortable in this particular case.