Planned Parenthood Exposed - New Undercover Video

[Agnapostate]

You haven't provided any textual criticism of the bible. Making vague reference with no concrete examples is nothing and doesn't deserve the energy it would take to figure out what the hell you're talking about.

You've already proven you seldom know what you're talking about yourself. "Basic anthropology".

That's as rich as Gay Biker's contention that Noah had sex with his daughters. You guys are both such scholars. I'm in awe.

That is false. I have provided textual criticism of the Bible in my observations regarding the additions of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, as well as the Comma Johanneum, not to mention the numerous discrepancies between the Gospels of Mark and John that I pointed out that you chose to ignore.

Have you considered the possibility that Biker mixed Noah up with Lot? Or he might have been remembering the occasion on which Ham viewed Noah drunk and naked, and thought he remembered more than he did. I don't know.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Deeply religious people are more likely to use their religious beliefs against their child when they happened to discover she was pregnant. Their personal beliefs would not allow them to permit their own child from making an informed decision about her own body.



There was no crime to report, though.

Deeply irreligious people are more likely to use their lack of religious beliefs against their child when they happen to discover she is pregnant. Their personal lack of beliefs would not permit them to consider that a child can't make an informed decision about anything.

The law doesn't require her to know for a fact that a crime has been committed. It only requires her to report any girl giving her age as a minor and stating that she has been impregnated by an adult. It's for CPS and the cops to investigate and decide whether a crime has happened.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is called entrapment, and there is gaurantee that a crime would have taken place. You cannot set someone up on the basis that a crime 'might' be committed.

No, it's not. First of all, entrapment has to be performed by the cops, not private citizens. Second of all, entrapment would require the girl to have specifically tried to get the nurse to break the law, for example by suggesting herself that the nurse ignore the mandatory reporting law, rather than merely giving her alleged age and that of her fictional boyfriend and letting the nurse decide all on her own to ignore her clear legal duty.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Still, no crime took place. Technically, she never broke any rules because no 13 year old girl existed.

Yeah, that's like saying a john hasn't committed the crime of solicitation to prostitution if the "hooker" turns out to be an undercover cop, and no actual prostitution happened.

Sorry, honey. Doesn't work that way. The law was that she has to report EVERY incident based on the ages given by the patient, not that she has to play Nancy Drew and find out whether the kid is lying.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He really is. Welcome to "fun with Agnapostate." He also sees nothing wrong with adult/child sexual contact.

He also believes that the law is only a guideline, to be ignored when there are "higher moral concerns". I wonder if he'd feel that way if the "higher moral concern" in question was my need to beat the holy hell out of him for having sex with my underaged daughter? Because I'm thinking the law wouldn't hold a lot of interest for me at that point.

 

[AllieBaba]

Mark 16:9-20
9Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

20And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.


John 7:53 - 8:11
53And every man went unto his own house.
1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Ok, there are the passages. I see no discrepancy. Per usual, you are blathering but not delineating. They're passages about two different periods of time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course they don't have the experience..they're only 14 FUCKING YEARS OLD. They've been competent at long division for about 2 years. Even if they'd had 14 years to focus entirely on mathematics and finances, they STILL wouldn't be competent.

Because not only do they not have the experience, they don't have the ability. A 14-year-old is a jumble of hormones and strange brain activity which correlate directly with adolescence.

They aren't adult. They can't make decisions about their sexuality and their finances because they aren't adults. And no amount of fantasizing on your part is going to change that. Just because a 14-year-old tells you he loves you and wants to have sex with you is NOT an excuse to do it.

How could my son, who is 13, possibly be "competent to make financial decisions"? Sure, he knows what money is for. Does he have a clue where it comes from, or how hard it is to acquire, or how much more complicated it is to manage finances when you move beyond the "dollar for a candy bar" stage? In his dreams, maybe.

It should be self-evident that a 13- or 14-year-old doesn't really understand finances, because he has never had to support himself or manage a household. He's had parents subsidizing and carrying him financially his whole life . . . which is what they're supposed to do. At 13, he should just be starting to really learn what's involved in the adult world of finance, not be kicked to the curb and told to write when he gets work.

And that all goes double and triple for sex.

 

[AllieBaba]

As I said. It's just an excuse for sexualizing children.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Actually, I have NO respect for people who violate laws in the United States. I don't give a damn what their lofty and high-minded reasons are. You want to protest a law, go for it. Until you get it changed, you live with it.

I see nothing courageous about taking shortcuts because you're too damned lazy, impatient, or self-absorbed to do it the long, hard, legal way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I say that you can make parenting decisions for my child when you start coughing up the child support checks, that's what I say.

By the way, it's not an "argument". It's simply an observation on how utterly screwed up our priorities are as a society.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What do you think such a young woman would be? Some kind of toy or object? She's a person capable of making informed decisions, not having them made for her.

No, she's not. She's a person, but she's NOT capable of making informed decisions. I have noticed that you like to spout off to everyone how you've conclusively proven that 13-year-old girls are mature, intelligent, responsible adults, and you think everyone should just accept the debate on your terms in that regard, but one of us has raised a 13-year-old girl and one of us hasn't, so you'll excuse me if I'll take my real-life experience over your cherry-picked studies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's also a big difference between people who are legitimately children and biological adults who have been disenfranchised through the artificial extension of childhood that has occurred in our society.

There's another big difference here: people who spout theoretical beliefs about "biological adulthood" and sound like creepy pedophiles, and people who actually know from experience the difference between a 13-year-old and a real adult.

 

[AllieBaba]

Bingo.
It sounds like crap straight off the Nambla site.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I say they're on the same wavelength as the school counselors, Planned Parenthood abortionists and teachers who refuse to pass judgment or investigate girls they know are having sex.

And I personally say they're ALL nuts. My 13-year-old still watches cartoons and plays with Transformers, for crying out loud.

 

[AllieBaba]

My mom had to tell me to quit playing with dollies when I was 13, lol.

 

[Agnapostate]

He also believes that the law is only a guideline, to be ignored when there are "higher moral concerns". I wonder if he'd feel that way if the "higher moral concern" in question was my need to beat the holy hell out of him for having sex with my underaged daughter? Because I'm thinking the law wouldn't hold a lot of interest for me at that point.

I'll just say this. When it comes to the expression of unorthodox and controversial views, it's not the 1st Amendment that protects you, but the 2nd. Just to keep you informed.

Mark 16:9-20
9Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

20And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.


John 7:53 - 8:11
53And every man went unto his own house.
1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Ok, there are the passages. I see no discrepancy. Per usual, you are blathering but not delineating. They're passages about two different periods of time.

No, you idiot. There's no contradiction between those two specific passages. Those two specific passages are later additions to the Bible that were not present in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, widely regarded as the oldest and best passges.

What I meant regarding the discrepancies was that the Gospel of Mark, (which was likely the first Gospel written), recounts that the Passover had started before Jesus was killed, (Mark 14:12 & 15:25), and that the "first day of unleavened bread" (Nisan 14) had occurred, whereas the Gospel of John claims that Jesus had been crucified prior to the consumption of the Passover meal. (John 19:14). In addition, in Mark 15:25, Mark claims that Jesus was crucified in "the third hour," whereas John claims in John 19:14 that it was "about the sixth hour." Even if we were to assume that John used the Roman method of reckoning time rather than the Jewish method, this still presents a chronological difficulty in that Mark's "third hour" would have been about 9:00 AM, whereas John's "sixth hour" would have been about 6:00 AM.

How could my son, who is 13, possibly be "competent to make financial decisions"? Sure, he knows what money is for. Does he have a clue where it comes from, or how hard it is to acquire, or how much more complicated it is to manage finances when you move beyond the "dollar for a candy bar" stage? In his dreams, maybe.

It should be self-evident that a 13- or 14-year-old doesn't really understand finances, because he has never had to support himself or manage a household. He's had parents subsidizing and carrying him financially his whole life . . . which is what they're supposed to do. At 13, he should just be starting to really learn what's involved in the adult world of finance, not be kicked to the curb and told to write when he gets work.

And that all goes double and triple for sex.

Yes, and that's precisely the scheme that I oppose.

And it's why I've advocated that youth be permitted to manage gradually larger amounts of money from very young childhood, in order to learn the value of proper financial management through trial and error by the time they reach early adolescence.

As I said. It's just an excuse for sexualizing children.

Sure. Except for the fact that I've advocated increased youth rights and responsibilities in numerous realms, not merely the sexual one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's a scenario for you, and it's also actually been documented.

A young woman of 17 years of age became pregnant. Due to the fact that there was a parental consent law in the state of Indiana, the state in which she lived, she could not obtain a legal abortion without parental consent. As a result, she obtained a back-alley abortion. Shortly after, she received an infection and became seriously ill. She then died.

Both scenarios are relatively unlikely to occur, but the suffering inflicted in my scenario is more severe in intensity and duration than the suffering inflicted in your scenario.

More than that, the state of economic disenfranchisement that adolescents are in is not a natural one. Your arguments regarding financial dependency are invalid because adolescent women are in a state of forced financial dependency, not a natural one. They are prohibited from obtaining economic freedom due to child labor laws, compulsory schooling laws, and the fact that they do not possess the legal rights to sign contracts or own property. Those of us who support the alleviation of such disenfranchisement are not dissuaded by the financial dependency argument.

First of all, we aren't talking about a 17-year-old. Second of all, I'd like to see your documentation, because I think you're a creepy, agenda-driven pedophile and I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you. Third, seems to me the fact that she was stupid enough to do something like that to her body proves that she wasn't mature enough or intelligent enough to be making life decisions. You certainly wouldn't see ME letting some butcher mangle my reproductive organs.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'll just say this. When it comes to the expression of unorthodox and controversial views, it's not the 1st Amendment that protects you, but the 2nd. Just to keep you informed.



No, you idiot. There's no contradiction between those two specific passages. Those two specific passages are later additions to the Bible that were not present in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, widely regarded as the oldest and best passges.

What I meant regarding the discrepancies was that the Gospel of Mark, (which was likely the first Gospel written), recounts that the Passover had started before Jesus was killed, (Mark 14:12 & 15:25), and that the "first day of unleavened bread" (Nisan 14) had occurred, whereas the Gospel of John claims that Jesus had been crucified prior to the consumption of the Passover meal. (John 19:14). In addition, in Mark 15:25, Mark claims that Jesus was crucified in "the third hour," whereas John claims in John 19:14 that it was "about the sixth hour." Even if we were to assume that John used the Roman method of reckoning time rather than the Jewish method, this still presents a chronological difficulty in that Mark's "third hour" would have been about 9:00 AM, whereas John's "sixth hour" would have been about 6:00 AM.

A discrepancy of 3 hours?
That's all you've got?

LOL!

 

[Cecilie1200]

The field of ethics is largely separate from legal issues. Hence the difference between a descriptive observation and a prescriptive recommendation. So you might say that parents legally control their childrens' bodies, but that does not address the issue of whether this is a commendable state of affairs.

No, it doesn't, but that wasn't the question. Perhaps you could stick to the conversation you jumped into, instead of trying to make it be about something else?

And yes, we all know how eager you are for our pubescent children to be turned loose on society without benefit of parental guidance and observation. Personally, I find you incredibly creepy and vaguely nauseating, and I doubt I'm the only one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see her ability to have a will at all comes and goes depending on your mood.

No one said children don't have wills. The argument is whether or not they should be allowed to give them free rein.

And in this case, the question revolves around that ludicrous, emotion-driven bit of propaganda contained in the word "forced".