Hacker News Reader

> Because it would be absurd for the morality of the act to radically shift based on whether it takes place a couple of months later or earlier.

The morality of this is that you should not take advantage of and harm a vulnerable person. In this case, being a child makes them deeply vulnerable. It doesn't matter if it is "a couple of months later or earlier".

View on HN

Yes, that’s exactly my point. Law usually draws a (somewhat arbitrary) line between child and adult, but what really happens is that people mature gradually, so while the practical difference between a 10-year-old and a 30-year-old is great, the practical difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old is minuscule.

Then your argument about this is a red herring

You kept bringing attention to the fact that ‘a 17 year old is a child’, as if the legal distinction was relevant to a discussion on morality. I addressed it because it was beyond the point. What happened to her was morally equally bad whether she was 17 or 18 at the time.

Earlier I mentioned that the legal age was 16 in the Virgin Islands. I was emphasizing that the legality of age was not the primary issue; the issue was the morality of taking advantage of a vulnerable person. I think we may be on the same side of this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com