Planned Parenthood Exposed - New Undercover Video

[Agnapostate]

Are you serious? I'm honestly thinking about turning you in as a potential child molester.

Please do. I beg you to do so.

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow. That's the most concise post you've exposed us to, yet.

Keep up the good work. Maybe someone will actually read your bs.

 

[Agnapostate]

No, really. Please, please, please, call in and report me. I really want to see Chris Hansen pull up in the:

And I'm so eager to file a wrongful arrest lawsuit right now that it's not even funny.

 

[AllieBaba]

You'd have to be arrested for that to occur.

 

[AllieBaba]

Have you been "wrongfully arrested" in the past?

 

[Agnapostate]

And you'd have to have evidence of wrongdoing for anyone to give a shit about your report.

Too bad your "evidence" is just hot air in your deluded little fantasy world.

 

[AllieBaba]

ACtually there are internet investigators who use the net to track down child molesters. You give them a tip and they go to work.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm surprised you aren't aware of that...but people who want to think of children as adults tend to have big gaps in their awareness quotient.

 

[Agnapostate]

ACtually there are internet investigators who use the net to track down child molesters. You give them a tip and they go to work.

Well, here's your big shot, buddy!

Go to www.perverted-justice.com and click on the "Contact Us" link. Or better yet, go to CyberTipline and tell them all about the big, bad molester lurking on the Interwebz, and how Chris Hansen needs to wheel the Party Van down my way immediately!

I'm sure they'll just be enthralled.

I'm surprised you aren't aware of that...but people who want to think of children as adults tend to have big gaps in their awareness quotient.

Nah, I'm thinking more of the kind of people who don't reply to detailed analyses of the artificial extension of "childhood" when I'm looking for gaps in awareness quotient.

 

[AllieBaba]

What a fruit.

 

[Agnapostate]

I know. Especially with that gay horse avatar.

Just shouts out "Clay Aiken fan!"

 

[AllieBaba]

You should have seen the one I had before....it was Frodo getting boinked by Gollum.

It was classic, you would have loved it.

 

[Agnapostate]

You should have seen the one I had before....it was Frodo getting boinked by Gollum.

It was classic, you would have loved it.

Has anyone informed you that Proposition 8 passed?

 

[Shogun]

Yeah...not really. My point about experience being deliberately withheld applies perfectly here. Either cite external evidence indicating that 14 year olds possess inferior cognitive abilities because of their age, (we are not interested in your own personal experiences, so don't bother trying to cite them again), or stop spewing such nonsense.



That's great. Too bad that it's blatantly wrong. The restrictions on youth signing contracts and owning property largely did not exist until this past century. 1901 was scarcely into this past century.

I didn't know that goats used credit cards, but you continue to prove my point that all individuals should manage progressively larger amounts of money from early childhood so that they can learn the fundamentals of financial management through trial and error.



Excuse me while I sit here being unimpressed with a complete lack of data from you. IQ was one of the various components I cited, including formal operational thinking and competence in decision-making. Thanks for ignoring the majority of the evidence that I have provided.



"First semester"? "Intro to Psych"? You are mind-numbingly stupid, and you have still failed to provide counter-evidence. It should be obvious to mentally balanced people reading this thread that these are not sufficient arguments.

I nailed it right on the head, didn't I. Notice, I don't use a question mark because your tell is pretty obvious.


First off, having few laws against kids signing contracts doesn't mean that 14 year old kids WERE out signing contracts. Second, just because you were assigned to read the book The Case Against Adolescence in your survey psych class doesn't mean that every concept therein is accurate, factual or applicable. I hate to break it to you but you might want to discover what Soft Science means before you get into scheduling next semester's classes. Point in case, legal restrictions on contractual obligation by age doesn't reflect the frequency of youthful signatures signing deeds and mortgages. At all. You wield the jargon like a teenage boy trying to buy a playboy magazine uses a fake mustache.. Hell, use outmoded data and half assed comprehension of Intelligence quotients all you want to; as I type this it's still true that college kids still destroy their credit despite, apparently, being mature enough to handle college freedom and credit cards and 14 year olds are still too young to comprehend the ramifications of their dicisions despite the report you had to do on the assigned reading this semester in Intro to Psych or Marriage and the Family.

 

[Agnapostate]

I nailed it right on the head, didn't I. Notice, I don't use a question mark because your tell is pretty obvious.

All right. Fine. I am not a first-year psych student or any other kind of amateur student or psych student of any sort. I have never been assigned to read The Case Against Adolescence, nor are the concepts therein solely those of their author, (I used graphs that their author created and probably has on his website, as you astutely noted), which you would know had you not deliberately ignored the studies of Weithorn and Campbell, Ambuel and Rappaport, and all the rest, as well as the articles written by Gerison Lansdown, Brian Dominick, and John Taylor Gatto.

I should also mention the books written by John Holt, Ivan Illich, Richard Farson, and all the rest on this matter.

First off, having few laws against kids signing contracts doesn't mean that 14 year old kids WERE out signing contracts. Second, just because you were assigned to read the book The Case Against Adolescence in your survey psych class doesn't mean that every concept therein is accurate, factual or applicable. I hate to break it to you but you might want to discover what Soft Science means before you get into scheduling next semester's classes. Point in case, legal restrictions on contractual obligation by age doesn't reflect the frequency of youthful signatures signing deeds and mortgages. At all. You wield the jargon like a teenage boy (sic) trying to buy a playboy magazine. Hell, use outmoded data and half assed comprehension of Intelligence quotients all you want to; as I type this it's still true that college kids still destroy their credit despite, apparently, being mature enough to handle college freedom and credit cards and 14 year olds are still too young to comprehend the ramifications of their dicisions despite the report you had to do on the assigned reading this semester in Intro to Psych or Marriage and the Family.

I've explained how individuals would be gradually integrated in order to be trained in financial responsibility several times; I'm not going to do it again.

I already told you that my evidence was not limited to "IQ measurements" or whatever shit you want to go on about. You have ignored everything I posted about competence in decision making that is not "outmoded data." I also find it interesting that you haven't posted one study yourself.

And really, lay off the supposition of whatever stupid "reports" or "Intro to Psych" shit you think I'm involved in. The chief proponent of this scheme is an 82 year old psychologist with numerous children and grandchildren.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Even if it's 100% accurate in what it shows there is still a lot it doesn't show, that's where my doubt comes in.

If I were in the nurses position I would have to prioritize the concerns. Is sex between a 31 and 13 year old troubling? Yes, of course. Does it trump any other possible concern? Not necessarily. That's why I don't think this is a good example to make hypothetical. Even as a thought exercise it leaves too many areas grey.

Even if it were where the 13 year old comes in and asks for condoms so she can have sex with a 31 year old there are still questions that aren't answered. And if she hasn't done it yet, so there is no crime, do you refuse her the condoms? I wouldn't. Because you still have to prioritize. if you can't stop her she can at least have some protection, so you have to give her the condoms.

What disturbs ME is that you think you have any "prioritizing" to do here. That's what the law is for: to "prioritize concerns" for people, so they don't take it upon themselves to make such decisions. In the case of a 13-year-old who reports having had sex with a 31-year-old to a first responder, the law says the first priority is to report it to law enforcement and CPS as child abuse. Period.

Out of curiosity, how much time do you spend "prioritizing concerns" when it comes to obeying OTHER laws? Which ones become optional to you when you decide, in your greater wisdom and judgement, that you know better?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

It has always shocked me that my daughter required my written consent to get her ears pierced, but could easily have waltzed into a PP and gotten a procedure that could have potentially killed her without anyone ever telling me.

So basically, she's smart and mature enough to decide for herself whether to risk her life and her future reproductive ability, but she's too young and dumb to decide if she wants holes in her earlobes.

Talk about your "prioritizing".

 

[Agnapostate]

What disturbs ME is that you think you have any "prioritizing" to do here. That's what the law is for: to "prioritize concerns" for people, so they don't take it upon themselves to make such decisions. In the case of a 13-year-old who reports having had sex with a 31-year-old to a first responder, the law says the first priority is to report it to law enforcement and CPS as child abuse. Period.

Out of curiosity, how much time do you spend "prioritizing concerns" when it comes to obeying OTHER laws? Which ones become optional to you when you decide, in your greater wisdom and judgement, that you know better?

I think even abortion protesters are ethically noble in a sense in that they're willing to protest a law that they consider unjust and violate it in some cases. I used to be alongside them.

I disagree with them about the value of human life, and don't believe that the fetus is a person, and I abhor their occasional tactic of bullying women who attempt to enter abortion clinics, but the fact that they're willing to violate the law in some circumstances to fulfill what they consider to be a higher ethical principles is commendable if not for anything more than its courage.

 

[Agnapostate]

It has always shocked me that my daughter required my written consent to get her ears pierced, but could easily have waltzed into a PP and gotten a procedure that could have potentially killed her without anyone ever telling me.

So basically, she's smart and mature enough to decide for herself whether to risk her life and her future reproductive ability, but she's too young and dumb to decide if she wants holes in her earlobes.

Talk about your "prioritizing".

I see we've reverted to this argument.

What do you say to people who believe she's smart enough to do both, and have posted multiple studies to that effect?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Should it? No matter what?

Does this hold true in those cases where a child needs medical treatment and the parents decide to pray instead?

You will notice that, in those cases, people who object go through the correct legal channels to protect the child from abuse, rather than simply deciding arbitrarily to make decisions for other people's kids. You know, the same channels YOU think the nurse should just bypass in order to get the kid an abortion and never prosecute her molester.