Yes and a few thoughts

Outstanding. I agree with all of it, but I'll offer a few comments anyway. On #1: I don't know that there is broad accord on what exactly "American" values are, in regards to various types of freedom, morality, etc. These values are constantly being redefined, and that there is a high degree of variation among regions, individuals. Many would argue that certain behaviors are tangible harm in a moral sense. While I don't agree that one should legislate on morality, there is a large fraction of the population that does. How does one go about reasoning with others who chose not to exercise or even consider reason? (Actually the above is more of a general set of thoughts rather than a specific response) On #4: Like above. How do you convince people to stop thinking with their emotions when they have been doing so for their entire lives? On #5: It doesn't matter what the laws were created for. If in the minds of politicians and citizens the laws now mean something else, then it is no different than if they were created for that purpose. If all laws had an automatic "sunset clause" and expired in 10 years, we would see AoC laws immediately reinstated with the new intent. Correct me if I am wrong-- but are not rising AoC in other parts of the world occurring due to concerns over "minors" being "abused"? On #6: As long as parents are continued to be recognized as having sole responsibility and authority over their children, the law will keep helping them make the decisions they want to make for their kids. Sure, the youth, if they had a say, would not want AoC laws: there isn't anything to be "protected" from. But the parents DO think that there is "harm" for them to be protected from, and feel that laws are necessary and just. Thus youth obtaining full legal status/rights is prerequisite for #6 to be applicable (I know this is obvious for some, but it's worth pointing out if this list is to be used elsewhere) #8 is my favorite but the same as above applies again. It will be phenomenally difficult to convince parents of this -- but maybe it will seem entirely natural to a future generation? #9 Maybe when everyone is well-educated, healthy, and has enough money to live a modest but comfortable lifestyle, then crime (of all types) will fall and levels of trust will rise. A few negative experiences are enough to sour a thousand great ones -- an unfortunate property of human psychology. #12 Again, parents see their kids as needing special protections, and these protections go beyond physical ones and include protections from perceived threats to their childrens' emotional well-being. The parents will have to be convinced first that kids a)can consent and b)will not be emotionally harmed by physical intimacy with someone other than an immediate family member. I speculate that a biological protective instinct is what makes parents so leery about this idea.