As a concerned outsider, the issue of JWs baptising children is one that worries me. Not because of its religious significance - if there is a god I think he'd accept a person baptised as a child saying 'Sorry, I was too young to know what I was doing, let me go away and think about it some more now I'm old enough'. But because as far as I can see, JWs baptism is (implicitly before 1985, explicitly since) a commitment to the WT organisation which the member can only exit through formal processes which can involve shunning and other problems.
As far as the 'age of responsibility' is concerned, some examples from UK law might illustrate how this should be regarded:
- Under 10 - a child cannot in law commit a criminal offence because he is not considered of being capable of forming 'criminal intent'
- 10 to 14 - a child may be convicted of a criminal offence if it is proved to a court that he as an individual was capable of froming 'criminal intent'
- 14 - may be in a bar with licensee's consent, but may not buy or consume alcohol
- 16 - may give consent to sex, marry (with parental consent), leave home (with parental consent), buy and consume wine, beer and cider with a meal, leave school, drive a motorcycle under 50 cc, play the national lottery
- 17 - drive a car, leave home without parental consent
- 18 - vote, marry without consent, buy and consume alcohol in bars, etc., now an 'adult' (although still some restrictions on vehicles to be driven).
In view of these, what should be regarded as the 'age of responsibility' for such a major life decision as being baptised into JWs? It depends on the individual, of course, but IMHO 14 would be a fair minimum.
I can understand of course why WTBTS is so keen to baptise children before they are old enough to think for themselves. Like any other major international corporation it is figures and results driven.