Three Reasons the Age of Majority Should Be Raised from 18 to 21

Should the Age at Which a Child Legally Becomes an Adult be Changed?

By Lori Wheat, published Oct 30, 2007
Published Content: 81  Total Views: 70,436  Favorited By: 20 CPs
Rating: 4.2 of 5
In the United States, the age of majority has been 18 years old for some time now. Should the age at which a child legally becomes an adult be changed from age 18 to age 21? Consider the following effects such a change could have:

1. Raising the age of majority from 18 to 21: less young people will die in battles and wars.

For most people, graduation from high school presents a major question of what to do next. Some people may choose to delay going to college in favor of joining the military. By serving in the military before going to college, the financial aspects of college will be easier to weather. Of course, that is assuming the young person makes it through their time in the military.

If the age of majority is changed from 18 to 21, young people at age 18 will no longer have the option to join the military. They will be more likely to go on to college immediately after high school graduation. Taking college courses will help broaden their horizons, and they will be much more mentally prepared to decide whether the military is the right choice for them at age 21.

2. Raising the age of majority from 18 to 21: there will be legal consistency regarding what a person of a certain age is considered legally competent to decide.

Many people think it is strange that the age of legally becoming an adult is age 18, but the age to legally consume alcohol is age 21. At age 18, the decision whether to join the U.S. military is considered to be completely within the realm of competent decision-making, but an 18 year old is not considered competent to choose whether to consume an alcoholic beverage. Both decisions can have serious consequences, but surely going to war will have at least as many grave mental and physical consequences as choosing to consume alcohol. Changing the age of majority from 18 to 21 (or conversely, changing the age of allowing alcohol consumption from age 21 to age 18) would result in legal consistency regarding what a person of a certain age is considered legally competent to decide.

3. Raising the age of majority from 18 to 21: the population, which has been increasing at an alarming rate, may begin to level off or decrease.

Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 12 of 12
 
 
I agree, thou I wouldnt call them children I would set it out like this - Child - 17 or under Young Person - 18-20 Adult - 21+

Posted on 01/08/2008 at 10:01:03 AM

 
I'm the mother of an 18-year-old son and a 20-year-old daughter, and I agree that in many ways they are not yet "adults" in spite of the fact that legally they are. Most young people don't really know what they want to do with their life when they graduate from high school, and could use a bit of extra time to mature.

Posted on 12/22/2007 at 8:12:17 AM

 
i'm sorry but i just can't agree. Biolgically, physically and mentally the human body does not adapt from that of an 18 yr old until he/she is 23! and responsibilty does not come at a certain age, you thrive for it.

Posted on 12/13/2007 at 8:12:37 PM

 
I agree with you totally!!...an 18 yr old boy or girl is so immatured!..

Posted on 11/01/2007 at 1:11:00 PM

 
Lori - Excellent points! Also, there is plenty of research to indicate that the parts of the brain responsible for impulse control and other traits CRUCIAL to more mature decision making are still maturing at age 18 and may not even be fully mature by 21, but usually a lot more mature than at 18.

Posted on 11/01/2007 at 11:11:00 AM

 
Your points have technical problems. Mainly, the minimum age for enlistment is 17 (it does require parental consent though), and thus not based on the age of majority (ref: http://www.todaysmilitary.com/app/tm/faq/entrance#age). The point about decreasing the population increase is also flawed. Arguments of how many pregnancies are planned aside, the united states population and population growth do not compare to those of developing countries, particularly India. As to the drinking age... well that one has always been out of place. The drinking age was lowered to 18 at one point, however the lobbying agency MADD pressured the federal government to increase it to 21. Though the drinking age is not federal law, they attached the requirement of having a drinking age of at least 21 to be able to receive federal money for highways. Some states fought this for a while, but all eventually gave in. It should be noted though, it would make much more sense, and be an easier legal feat to

Posted on 10/31/2007 at 2:10:00 PM

 
But without 18 year olds who don't know any better, how could we attack and occupy countries with different ideologies? Excellent article, Lori.

Posted on 10/31/2007 at 11:10:00 AM

 
Lori, this is a great topic for discussion! Great points. I don't agree with ALL of it, but it's well stated! Dave

Posted on 10/31/2007 at 11:10:00 AM

 
I do find it odd that you have to be 21 to drink in America, but you can marry and do so much more at a much younger age, not that being able to drink at 18 in the UK means people are more mature, but it is a little more consistent. Sophie

Posted on 10/31/2007 at 9:10:00 AM

 
Excellent article! I wonder if "responsible" parents are considering the extra 3 years before making said child?

Posted on 10/30/2007 at 10:10:00 PM

 
Excellent points here!

Posted on 10/30/2007 at 10:10:00 PM

 
Great article! I agree with you. Most people aren't ready to face adulthood until at least 21 anyway.

Posted on 10/30/2007 at 9:10:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 12 of 12
 
Most Commented On