Note: this post is by PDF, not by the Devil himself...
So, the law reckons that if you're 13, you're grown-up enough to decide whether you live or die.
As a proper libertarian, that works for me as a concept. The most problematic issue with libertarianism is precisely when children stop being non-autonomous entities who need protected from whoever's claiming that right, and start being people who you can treat as entities in themselves who're allowed to make decisions in their own interests.
[and it's not one we've resolved, at all, ever, either: most libertarians, even the far-right-est ones, are aware that Fred and Rose West oughtn't to be allowed, but there's pretty much no consensus beyond that. Some people who view themselves as libertarians actually think that parents ought to be allowed to indoctrinate their kids in religious fundamentalism - seriously, unless one views kids as literally chattels, there's nothing beginning with 'liber' going on there.]
Nonetheless, the implications for society of the decision are either significant and deeply weird, or more likely will be hushed up. But on the grounds that you illustrious readers are in the 'not being mental about this sort of thing' bracket: which do we think is the more important decision, with the gravest consequences, which requires the most maturity to reflect on it? Is it a) 'whether or not I live or die?', or is it b) 'do or do I not allow people I like to put bits of them in close proximity with bits of me'?
Cos I'm reckoning that b) is fairly trivial in the long run, whilst a) is quite a bit more significant. And whilst personally I'd sooner die than have any kind of prolonged contact with a 13-year-old girl (not morally - just I'm not a big fan of whichever iteration of S-Club or Kylie or ITV-prompted fake music is currently ongoing, sorry), it seems utterly bizarre to impose that rule on life-in-general if we think the girl making the decision has the right to do herself in (in a situation where many people, me included, would do the same - but where there is a really really fucking enormous decision that the law is accepting, rightly, her right to make).
And no, I have no sodding idea how to resolve this either as a libertarian or not, but perhaps if we stopped appropriating people of various ages to support our own political agendas then that would help (see: idiots who think that because supporters of Mr Ross and Mr Brand in the recent pointless fuss are younger than them, their views are meaningless). Anything welcome, although I'm sceptical that you're going to come up with a non-arbitrary way of justifying the status quo...