Philosophical in the sense that laws are created to prevent the worst of all outcomes. I don't know anyone that would argue that it is impossible for someone under the age of 18 to consent under the basis that every single human under the age of 18 is incapable of understanding the gravity of the decision to have sex. People advance physically, mentally and even sexually at different ages and some will be ready much earlier than others... but we set laws to protect those who aren't ready while still trying to maximize choice for those who are. With no age of consent laws we'd be agreeing to maximize the choice of all people with absolutely no protection for those too young or underdeveloped to make or understand these choices. With an age like 30 we'd be protecting
nearly
everyone, while severely limiting the rights (is sex a right? I'm just getting tired of saying choice) of those that are mature and able to make informed decisions about their sex lives.
I mean there is still the idea that having sex with people under a certain age is gross, abhorrent or even evil in some cases which would be a political argument... but I believe setting an age is a philosophical argument.
