UberHamburgler

a43a2e1664132faSDFSADFasdf To answer this, we must bring in biology. Parental protection is naturally required to protect children in order to ensure the survival and well being of children. It is thus unto the parents to act in defense of their children from sexual predators until they are mature enough to decide for themselves. Children may want to eat nothing but Reese's and Mt. Dew, but a responsible parent would prevent them from doing so, likewise in this situation - close kin protect each other from themselves when they are deem the other to lack personal agency. So when is that age, it depends on each individual child - some people will be ready at 12 and others not until their 20s. At some point the parents will almost certainly decide that their child is mature enough to decide for themselves, if they don't, or if they are going to take to long, then the child in question will have to decide if they are willing to live with the overbearance for the benefit of the support elsewhere in their lives or they can take the responsibility unto themselves if they are able to leave and make it on their own. Here we run into where many people find fault with the NAP. If a parent refuses to protect their child, how does that child receive protection. What if someone refuses to acknowledge another's moral agency and keeps them locked in a bedroom to prevent them from acting out their will. One could say that the neighbors would intervene to defend said person/child, but that is so incredibly subject to abstraction and abuse - I.e. we must bomb the hell out of Kandahar to protect the Afghans from the Taliban.