Planned Parenthood Exposed - New Undercover Video

[eots]

did the caller speicifically say they were donating money because they wanted to get rid on black people? no They say they wanted to donate it to the funding for minority groups so the lady could of taken it as someone who is minority themselves trying to help someone out. ALso do you have proof that is actually what they would have used the money for. They lady could have agreed to this because she wanted the donation especially when under Bush they have cut funding for planned parenthood.

well if one had no sense of phrasing or tone of voice they might think that !..lol..but i suppose its possible ..lm sure she thought the guy was a freak but was just not going to concern herself with the motivation....
if you knew the about the motivation of the founder of planed unparenthood you could well see it in a different light

 

[Agnapostate]

that is one of the most ridiculous things I think I've ever seen someone say. Young people can't be trusted to take their medications regularly, which is what helps people with HIV remain healthy for so long now.

My point was that because of the physical vigor of the young, they are able to resist both initial infection and the deleterious symptoms of full blown AIDS to a greater extent than those not possessing such qualities.

It is a myth which is why I don't make my daughter attend church. I find most to be filled with hypocrites and liars. Do as I say not as I do types.

In some regards. In other regards, I am a former Christian Reconstructionist, so I can profess no hypocrisy on at least one ground.

what do you consider a young adult? I do agree that the drinking age should be 18. But other than that what contraints do you see hindering these "young adults?

I would say that I regard biological adults, (meaning those who have experienced menarche or spermarche), under the age of 30 or 35 as young adults. I see hindrances placed upon them in the form of age restrictions, such as the voting age, the drinking age, the driving age, the working age, the age at which one can opt to leave school, etc.

do you even take into account that life expectancy has increased dramatically even in the last 30 or so years? Modern medicine makes it to where people don't have to live their entire lives in a nano-second. My grandmother married at 13 and had my mother at 14. She ended up having to have a hysterectomy at 21 because her body had not sufficiently matured enough to bear a child and doing so damaged her reproductive organs. My mother was an only child because of it. Babies shouldn't be having babies!

Babies are physically incapable of having babies, so your reference is to young women. Regarding your point about life expectancy, I would again ask if you would be in favor of extending the age of majority to 30 should the average human lifespan be extended to 150 through scientific advancements. I would then point out that my argument is not a dogmatic opposite of your own. You simply claim that young adolescents should not have children at all, but I do not claim that older adults should not have children, despite the fact that physical conditions similar to the one you mentioned can afflict older mothers. I claim that because of the widely varying circumstances and experiences of the mass array of individuals that constitute humanity, no set standard or age restriction for childbearing will suffice.

Next, your claim that "babies should not be having babies" seems directly opposite to the prospect of permitting adolescents to obtain abortions, since it seems as though that is what would directly prevent them from having babies. But I digress.

I think it likely that you will refer to the "economic circumstances" of teenage parenthood, which is itself a somewhat overhyped phenomenon. A sociological analysis of Hotz et al. is most prominently characterized by a quotation from the study.

Our results suggest that much of the “concern” that has been registered regarding teenage childbearing is misplaced, at least based on its consequences for the subsequent educational and economic attainment of teen mothers. In particular, our estimates imply that the “poor” outcomes attained by such women cannot be attributed, in a causal sense, primarily to their decision to begin their childbearing at an early age. Rather, it appears that these outcomes are more the result of social and economic circumstances than they are the result of the early childbearing of these women. Furthermore, our estimates suggest that simply delaying their childbearing would not greatly enhance their educational attainment or subsequent earnings or affect their family structure… For most outcomes, the adverse consequences of early childbearing are short-lived. For annual hours of work and earnings, we find that a teen mother would have lower levels of each at older ages if they had delayed their childbearing (emphasis mine).

Regardless, to the extent that adolescent women are incapable of providing for their children, (and again, this trend appears to be more closely related with poverty than with age), it is due to their economic disenfranchisement through child labor and compulsory schooling laws, and would be reversed were those restrictions not present.

are you saying that a 12, 13 or 14 year old is emotionally mature enough to take responsibility for keeping themselves safe from diseases? do they have the willingness to go to the doctor for regular check-ups which is what you do when you become sexually active? do they have the emotional stability to understand that having sex with someone doesn't guarantee you that they'll like you, that sometimes people just want to have sex? are they capable of dealing with that kind of rejection? Do you know ANYTHING about adolescents other than what you remember when you were one? I remember at that age I would've been devestated to sleep with a guy and have him dump me. Adults feel the same way, imagine a child who cries if their friends don't like their new haircut or clothes?

I have posted studies indicating that young adolescents possess the capacity to offer informed consent to medical treatment. Is there any rational criticism of these studies that you are prepared to offer? I think the perspective you mention is true for wider society, not just adolescents. In fact, I'd say that due to sociobiological realities combined with an anti-sex culture, there is a heavy male/female divide when it comes to such activities, since females are more biologically prone to conceptualize sexual contact as romantic and emotional, and males more biologically prone to conceptualize it as physical. It's related to the evolutionary reality that males were intended to "spread their seed" as far and wide as possible, and females were intended to be choosy about sex partners so as to select one who could defend them during nine months of pregnancy and a later period of nursing. But there is also an element in our culture, (which we can be grateful to Christianity for), that influences another view of sexual contact as immoral if outside of marital relations, and that impacts societal perspectives of sex negatively.

you're trying to argue that CHILDREN should be looked upon as sexually responsible creatures and therefore should be allowed the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. Your argument is flawed insomuch as unless these same children are willing and able to go get jobs and support themselves and whatever offspring they may produce then they shouldn't be having sex!

I don't see that you have much direct evidence that adolescents are unwilling to obtain employment; I regard them as being unable to do so because they are afflicted by direct state enfranchisement in the form of child labor and compulsory schooling laws, coupled with the fact that they do not possess the legal rights to sign contracts or own property. In fact, I covered these issues in the long post I made earlier in this thread.

Apparently you're an advocate for child sex... I find that disturbing on several levels I must say

If you consider biologically (and mentally, as evidenced by the studies that I provided) adolescents to be "children," there is little I can do to help you.

but at what age? that is the question.

I don't regard there as being any fixed age at which individuals can be assumed to be competent, which is why I oppose specific age restrictions, due to their arbitrariness.

used to be childred HAD to grow up fast because their family needed them to help work and support the family. With technology and with advancements that's no longer necessary in most communities. America is unique in that we have the ability to give our children the GIFT of their youth....many countries don't have that but I venture to guess they would if they could.

Some may regard "childhood" as a gift. Some may not. The critical element here is that, again, you take a zealously dogmatic view of childhood, while I take a more fluid one. It may help to conceptualize childhood as a walled and gated garden. Some may enjoy the tranquility of the garden, and have no desire to leave there. But others may regard it as a desolate prison, and yearn to escape. Claiming that all persons are in one group or another is foolish.

Could children be taught to be ready for sex? sure....just look in Cambodia where the child sex market is booming. Is that a future that holds any kind of promise for young people? Not IMO.

That's a rather offensive comparison, in my opinion. Prostitutes in extremely destitute countries are essentially wage slaves, as are most workers in destitute countries. The nature of wage slavery involves a coercion directly opposed to the variety of liberty that I recommend that youth possess, not only in sexual matters, but in matters of voting, substance use, driving, schooling, working, etc.

I see nothing wrong with allowing children to be children for longer. I'm quite happy that my 14 year old isn't experimenting with sex at this point. She happens to be wise enough to know that she's not ready for sex. There is no "magic" number when someone wakes up and is suddenly mature enough to have sex and be able to handle all the emotional ramifications that go along with it. Everyone comes to that point in their own time....some are 15 or 16 others are in their 20s. The key is encouraging people to WAIT for that to happen and not just rushing in to get laid and get it over with.

I have already addressed the issue of emotional ramifications by noting that for a large part, they are social constructs. You really haven't provided any evidence to the contrary, to be honest.

pre-teens and teens should be being taught that sex isn't casual and that they shouldn't just do it to do it. It's not a game.

Again, sex can be compared to a drug in that its nature as fluid. Some drug users may use drugs merely for recreational purposes, while others will use them for religious purposes, as part of a sacred ritual. Similarly, some may see sex as casual, while others will attach the deeply emotional element that you attach to it. But to declare it to be one or the other and nothing else is unacceptably dogmatic.

More than that, I regard your remarks toward Amanda as being condescending, patronizing, and offensive. I do not deny that the majority of parents are not malevolent, dictatorial entities seeking to oppress their children. On the contrary, most parents obviously have good intentions and only wish the best for their children. But some of the worst acts in human history were committed with good intentions, and it is my belief that most parents unwittingly treat their offspring with a lack of dignity and respect. But asserting that Amanda would come to accept her parents' treatment of her is a baseless assumption tied to a crude stereotype. Perhaps you forgave your parents for what you once perceived as foul treatment. And perhaps most others did. But to assume that Amanda would, and that her perspective is merely clouded by her age, is an unjust stereotype. If I asserted that you merely viewed sexual contact as deeply emotional merely by virtue of being female, since females conceptualize sexual contact as being emotional and romantic, while males conceptualize it in physical terms, this would be a similarly unjust stereotype.

 

[Amanda]

More than that, I regard your remarks toward Amanda as being condescending, patronizing, and offensive. I do not deny that the majority of parents are not malevolent, dictatorial entities seeking to oppress their children. On the contrary, most parents obviously have good intentions and only wish the best for their children. But some of the worst acts in human history were committed with good intentions, and it is my belief that most parents unwittingly treat their offspring with a lack of dignity and respect. But asserting that Amanda would come to accept her parents' treatment of her is a baseless assumption tied to a crude stereotype. Perhaps you forgave your parents for what you once perceived as foul treatment. And perhaps most others did. But to assume that Amanda would, and that her perspective is merely clouded by her age, is an unjust stereotype. If I asserted that you merely viewed sexual contact as deeply emotional merely by virtue of being female, since females conceptualize sexual contact as being emotional and romantic, while males conceptualize it in physical terms, this would be a similarly unjust stereotype.

OMG, I wish I could say things like that. I don't even know how to begin to think like that. Thank you for saying clearly what I keep tripping over.

 

[Agnapostate]

OMG, I wish I could say things like that. I don't even know how to begin to think like that. Thank you for saying clearly what I keep tripping over.

Oh, I don't think I'm that smart. (And there are plenty who will agree. ) I just think I have some knowledge of a specific topic that I've learned from studying it, that anyone else could learn just as easily. By the same token, I know little about auto mechanics. (Though I'm trying to learn). It's an extremely complex topic, but it doesn't reflect genius ability so much as it reflects a person's specific study of that topic. I think it's possible for you to say everything I've said and more.

 

[Anguille]

OMG, I wish I could say things like that. I don't even know how to begin to think like that. Thank you for saying clearly what I keep tripping over.

Agna says it like it is. It's posts like that that keep me coming back to ths board.

 

[Anguille]

What are my other choices? How do you disagree with her position?


And sure I get that I'm less experienced. That's fine. How am I supposed to understand if she won't explain?

I'd give you some rep, young lady, if I had more to give. And you'd take it. Why? Because I told you to and I know best.

 

[Makedde]

This whole line of reasoning fails as a rationale. At the age of 13, any medical procedure should involve parental knowledge.

I disagree. If a child falls pregnant, only she knows what is best. Only she has the right to make a decision, not her parents. Her parents do not own her body, nor do they control it. Would it be fair for her parents to pierce her ears against her will, for example? If her parents consent to it, then by your rationale, it would be acceptable. Should parents have the right to force their child to donate a kidney to their other child?

I imagine you would say no to both - so why should parents have the right to force their daughter to bear a child against her will? Abortion has risks, sure - but so does ear piercing, and the risks of kidney donation are tenfold compared to abortion.

Now, if the parents have the right to control their daughters body and force her to gestate, then by rights they can also force her to get her ears pierced and undergo surgery against her will.

 

[eots]

I disagree. If a child falls pregnant, only she knows what is best. Only she has the right to make a decision, not her parents. Her parents do not own her body, nor do they control it. Would it be fair for her parents to pierce her ears against her will, for example? If her parents consent to it, then by your rationale, it would be acceptable. Should parents have the right to force their child to donate a kidney to their other child?

I imagine you would say no to both - so why should parents have the right to force their daughter to bear a child against her will? Abortion has risks, sure - but so does ear piercing, and the risks of kidney donation are tenfold compared to abortion.

Now, if the parents have the right to control their daughters body and force her to gestate, then by rights they can also force her to get her ears pierced and undergo surgery against her will.

this has to be of the stupidest things I have ever heard..talk about standing logic on its head

 

[Makedde]

this has to be of the stupidest things I have ever heard..talk about standing logic on its head

Again, I disagree. If a parent can force a child to have a baby against her will, then by rights they can force her to use her body in other ways.

 

[eots]

or ..they have no right to stop her from giving away her kidney or amputating a body part...or drinking poison

 

[Makedde]

or ..they have no right to stop her from giving away her kidney or amputating a body part...or drinking poison

Drinking poison would suggest she is suicidal, and it would be in her best interests for her parents to do everything they could to help her.

Donating a kidney would be a selfless decision that only she would have the right to make. If she were in good health, and likely to recover well, was aware of the risks, what is wrong with her consenting to a donation?

Amputating a body part. First of all, why would she this? There are reasons for everything, and no one cuts off a limb because they feel like it. We would need to know more before we determine what is in her best interests.

Now, I will say again that someone stated that a child should notify her parents as they are required to do with every medical procedure.

If the parents would force the child to give birth, is it in her best interests to tell her parents? Of course not.
Now, because some will still say that this should be required, they must also agree that a parent can force their daughter to have her ears pierced or donate blood or an organ against her will.

 

[Valerie]

Again, I disagree. If a parent can force a child to have a baby against her will, then by rights they can force her to use her body in other ways.

I think 13 is too young to allow a child to make such a decision without parental knowledge -- not necessarily consent but knowledge-- of at least an adult guardian, if not a parent. I certainly understand wanting to protect a child who is pregnant from abuse by their angry parent, but someone needs to be sure the girl is well informed and thinking for herself and not overly influenced either way. The best interest of a minor CHILD is, not always, but most often, best served by their own parent.

Do we really want to relinquish parental rights to someone else for a child of 13? What if your child was out of your immediate care for a brief period and for whatever reason you should find yourself in the circumstance that someone else decided what was best for your daughter and you heard about her abortion after the fact? Who has a right to violate that parental discretion? Maybe the mom would have wanted to be there for her. In my opinion it would only be justified in extreme circumstances of physical or sexual abuse to exclude a parent from their legal right to be informed that their daughter is pregnant.

 

[Amanda]

The best interest of a minor CHILD is, not always, but most often, best served by their own parent.

Thank you

 

[eots]

Drinking poison would suggest she is suicidal, and it would be in her best interests for her parents to do everything they could to help her.

and wanting a abortion would be homicidal and they should do whatever they have to do to help her

Donating a kidney would be a selfless decision that only she would have the right to make. If she were in good health, and likely to recover well, was aware of the risks, what is wrong with her consenting to a donation

?

at 12...its not her call to make

Amputating a body part. First of all, why would she this? There are reasons for everything, and no one cuts off a limb because they feel like it. We would need to know more before we determine what is in her best interests.

At any given moment, a small number of Americans are searching for a surgeon willing to cut off their perfectly healthy limbs.

These men and women suffer from apotemnophilia, one of the most bizarre disorders in the annals of psychology, and they want to undergo amputations in order to "feel whole."


Bizarre - People Who Want Healthy Arms And Legs Removed



Now, I will say again that someone stated that a child should notify her parents as they are required to do with every medical procedure.

If the parents would force the child to give birth, is it in her best interests to tell her parents? Of course not

.

of course it is there are medical consequences to abortion and risk as well as psychological harm

Now, because some will still say that this should be required, they must also agree that a parent can force their daughter to have her ears pierced or donate blood or an organ against her will.[/

QUOTE]

they are not forcing anything they are allowing a natural process to continue

 

[Valerie]

Thank you

You made a lot of good points earlier!

 

[Anguille]

I think 13 is too young to allow a child to make such a decision without parental knowledge -- not necessarily consent but knowledge-- of at least an adult guardian, if not a parent. I certainly understand wanting to protect a child who is pregnant from abuse by their angry parent, but someone needs to be sure the girl is well informed and thinking for herself and not overly influenced either way. The best interest of a minor CHILD is, not always, but most often, best served by their own parent.

Do we really want to relinquish parental rights to someone else for a child of 13? What if your child was out of your immediate care for a brief period and for whatever reason you should find yourself in the circumstance that someone else decided what was best for your daughter and you heard about her abortion after the fact? Who has a right to violate that parental discretion? Maybe the mom would have wanted to be there for her. In my opinion it would only be justified in extreme circumstances of physical or sexual abuse to exclude a parent from their legal right to be informed that their daughter is pregnant.

Wouldn't the fact that a minor child got pregnant demonstrate that the parents were not being good caretakers of the child to warrant such control over her? A 13 year old is old enough to decide for herself if she wants an abortion and if she wants her parents to know. Children are not private property.

 

[eots]

Wouldn't the fact that a minor child got pregnant demonstrate that the parents were not being good caretakers of the child to warrant such control over her? A 13 year old is old enough to decide for herself if she wants an abortion and if she wants her parents to know. Children are not private property.

well then a mature 11 year old should be able to have sex.. there are 11yr olds every bit as mature as many 13 yr olds ..so if she chooses..no one owns her ..its her body..she can have sex with all the men she chooses and abort as she chooses

 

[Luissa]

well then a mature 11 year old should be able to have sex.. there are 11yr olds every bit as mature as many 13 yr olds ..so if she chooses..no one owns her ..its her body..she can have sex with all the men she chooses and abort as she chooses

I think the point being made is where are the parents of the eleven year old?
And parents sugar coating sex isn't a good way to teach your child either. Your child should be able to come to you about anything and feel like they will have support.

 

[Makedde]

and wanting a abortion would be homicidal and they should do whatever they have to do to help her

Forcing her to gestate against her will would be 'helping' her?

at 12...its not her call to make

Why not? It's her body, is it not? No one else is in control of her body but herself.

At any given moment, a small number of Americans are searching for a surgeon willing to cut off their perfectly healthy limbs.

These men and women suffer from apotemnophilia, one of the most bizarre disorders in the annals of psychology, and they want to undergo amputations in order to "feel whole."

These people are suffering from a psychological illness. They should undergo counselling, but if this does not work, and it is decided that the individual will be happier with their limb removed, then that person should be permitted to have surgery to remove said limb - provided they are of sound mind and are aware of all risks.

Now, I will say again that someone stated that a child should notify her parents as they are required to do with every medical procedure.

Not if those parents would force her to use her body in a way she objects to.

of course it is there are medical consequences to abortion and risk as well as psychological harm

You don't think there are psychological consequences to forcing a young girl to have a baby against her will?

they are not forcing anything they are allowing a natural process to continue

Keep telling yourself that, won't you?

 

[Silence]

I'm not "playing the victim" I'm frustrated that you think "because I'm older and say so" is some kind of reasonable answer. You completely get that it wouldn't hold water for me to say it, but don't get that it's the same for you.

If you used that same logic in any other situation I doubt anyone would agree with you because "Because I said so" isn't an argument.

I never once used the argument "because I said so". I find that to be the most ridiculous response when answering a question. I think you are projecting what you've heard throughout your life onto my response and there is nothing I can do about that.

You asked a question and I answered. If you didn't like the answer then I'm sorry. Sometimes that happens in life.

If you decide to participate in a meaningful way I'd like to continue but it doesn't make any sense to continue at this point if everytime you get stuck you play the age card.

but to you meaningful will only be if I concede that I can't possibly know more than you simply by benefit of the fact that I've lived longer and been through more in my life, right? sorry Amanda I DO know more than you and it IS because I'm older and that is a fact you're just going to have to accept.

I don't think you really understand the depth of my appreciation of age or wisdom. One of my favorite people to talk to is my pastor and he's as old as dirt. I don't think older people are trying to ruin younger peoples lives, at least not on purpose. And I'm not an advocate for teens having all the sex they want, in fact, I may actually think it's more of a problem than you do. But if we're going to talk about it you have to be willing to give me real reasons for what you're saying. I hope you can appreciate what it is like to have people use that kind of "reason" on you all the time. And it might not seem like such a big deal to you, but it was really hard for me to stand up for myself and tell you I didn't think it was fair. I know about self-esteem issues better than I'm likely to admit very often.

You're contradicting yourself Amanda or backpeddling, whichever you prefer.

I've given you a reason why I don't think kids should have sex. you don't like the reason because I said it's due to their immaturity and inability to be responsible and thoughtful about the ramifications of having sex.

From what I've read from you you think that allowing kids the freedom to express themselves sexually will prove they are capable and responsible (apparently Ang agrees with this so you're not alone). I think someone should have to prove their responsibility and capability BEFORE having sex not BY having sex.

Do you see what I'm saying? I hope so. I've complimented you numerous times on your thoughtful and mature posts but IMO you're acting like a petulant child you wants me to agree with them rather than debate the issue at hand. It's annoying and frustrating because I know you've got the intelligence to understand what I'm saying.