Originally Posted by
capandkirby
The problem with Civil War 1 (and with the MCU version of Civil War), is that only extremes are presented. I've said this before, I'll say it again, Marvel is creating a false dichotomy in narrowing the choices down to either selling your soul to the government, or out-and-out rebellion. And the odd thing about it is that the comics, themselves, presented the third option at one point, which is that the Avengers were non-state actors, which means the Avengers, as an organization, were allowed to choose their own membership, pick their own leaders, decide what battles to fight, but they had to sign a contract with the UN that specified rules of conduct wherein the Avengers agreed to respect International Law, treat people humanely, and adhere to a behavioral guide of conduct. The minute the Avengers acted in a way the UN deemed untoward (re: Avengers Disassembled) the UN terminated their association with the Avengers and the Avengers lost their non-state actor status.
Nice, clean solution. The Avengers still have rules and guidelines and are expected to act as a responsible party, but they're not being conscripted against their will (like say, Tony and Carol tried to do with Jessica Jones, re:Civil War), they're not putting their families at risk (Aunt May) by their real-life identities being public domain, and their not at risk of being controlled by a bad administration coming into office. In the comics it was Norman Osborn, but I shudder to think of how the Avengers and 50 state initiative would be utilized if they existed in real-life by the current administration.
My point, here, is that there are ways to regulate superheroes that don't profile, violate superpowered individuals basic human rights, force conscription, or dox them, therein putting larger targets on their backs.
But hey, why use logic when instead you can have the maximum amount of drama.
As for the kids, young as they are, they do have powers. And those powers can be used to help people at a greater success ratio than those without could manage. It's the age old philosophy Spider-Man, himself, uses as a tenet. With great power comes great responsibility. Or as Steve Rogers often says, it is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak. These kids are going to be inheriting the Earth one day, instilling a sense of responsibility and protectiveness and involvement shouldn't be so blatantly discouraged. I take my minor daughter to vote with me for every election, because I want to instill in her that she has a voice and a civic responsibility to use it when she comes of age. There exists, in real-life, youth programs for first respondents or the military. I don't see why underage superheroes have to be outright banned, when instead there could be a (voluntary) mentorship program, or (again voluntary) training by older superheroes. Sort of a superhero version of training day. Just going straight to outright banning is a tad ridiculous. But again, why use logic when you can have maximum drama instead.