Planned Parenthood Exposed - New Undercover Video

[del]

Wow! That was pretty sharp! Must have required a lot of thought, that one!

he was right.
for once.
think krakatoa

 

[AllieBaba]

The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, and pride and arrogance.

How true. You can find all those characteristics in any one of your posts.

 

[sky dancer]

What do you think? Let's put Planned Parenthood out of business all together and make all women have baby after baby.

Then the only planned parenthood will be gay couples.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What do you think? Let's put Planned Parenthood out of business all together and make all women have baby after baby.

Then the only planned parenthood will be gay couples.

We can always count on you to show up and contribute something totally childish and nonsensical that doesn't add a damned thing to the intelligent, thoughtful conversation.

But at least you're consistent.

 

[AllieBaba]

What do you think? Let's put Planned Parenthood out of business all together and make all women have baby after baby.

Then the only planned parenthood will be gay couples.

Nobody makes women have child after child. THey choose that road. If they don't want to have child after child then they probably should be a little more picky about the type of sex they have.

But thanks for illustrating that it's the people who support abortion who have a problem with women choosing to have children.

 

[Agnapostate]

How true. You can find all those characteristics in any one of your posts.

On the contrary, you find such characteristics in the posts of an individual who tosses out inane one-liners without clarifying them, and reveals a woeful ignorance of the law while imagining that they have the upper hand in the debate.

Such as yourself.

We can always count on you to show up and contribute something totally childish and nonsensical that doesn't add a damned thing to the intelligent, thoughtful conversation.

But at least you're consistent.

To clarify: You are telling this to other people?

You, the person who ridiculously misused a term intended to refer to a psychological disorder, and prattled on about the superiority of your worldview despite not providing any legitimate evidence to support it.

 

[Agnapostate]

he was right.
for once.
think krakatoa

Think legitimate responses.

 

[AllieBaba]

On the contrary, you find such characteristics in the posts of an individual who tosses out inane one-liners without clarifying them, and reveals a woeful ignorance of the law while imagining that they have the upper hand in the debate.

Such as yourself.



UOTE]

Please provide evidence that I have a woeful ignorance of the law.

 

[sky dancer]

What happened to the topic?

 

[Agnapostate]

Please provide evidence that I have a woeful ignorance of the law.

I did so several pages back in the post that you whined about and refused to read because it was too long.

I also noted your ignorance of the legitimate meaning of terms used to describe psychological disorders. You claimed that you had "worked with" pedophiles, and that individuals that were sexually attracted to a person who is 14 or 16 were pedophiles. I stated that that was false, as it is.

No, yet another argument used by people who actually know what they're talking about. You clearly don't. According to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, "pedophilia" is "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

Similarly, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders sets out the following diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual
urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children
(generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked
distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in
Criterion A.

The bit regarding the age of 13 years may be better classified as hebephilia (a sexual attraction to pubescent individuals) than pedophilia, as the average age of menarche is about 12.5, and sexual attraction to reproductive beings would by nature not be pedophilia. It should also be said that sexual interactions with a prepubescent child are not necessary for a diagnosis of pedophilia, as the term primarily refers to a sexual attraction rather than any sexual behavior. Thus, a person can be a pedophile without having had any sexual interaction with a prepubescent child, just as a person can be a heterosexual while still being a virgin. Somewhat more strangely, a person can also have a sexual interaction with a child but not necessarily meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, but merely be a situational offender.

I am unsure what "law" you're referring to when you make this claim, as there is no universal age of consent. It is true that the age of consent is 18 in several states, and that an individual could be prosecuted under the federal Mann Act if he or she crossed state lines for the purpose of engaging in sexual interactions with a minor, even if said minor was above the age of consent in his or her respective state of residence. But the age of consent is 16 in over half of the United States, according to this Wikimedia map. (Though some numbers may be inaccurate.)

 

[sky dancer]

Nobody makes women have child after child. THey choose that road. If they don't want to have child after child then they probably should be a little more picky about the type of sex they have.

But thanks for illustrating that it's the people who support abortion who have a problem with women choosing to have children.

Do you oppose all forms of contraception?

 

[AllieBaba]

of course not. I oppose eugenics. There's a difference.

 

[Agnapostate]

So I take it your lack of a response to me means that my identification of your woeful misunderstanding of the law was accurate?

 

[sky dancer]

Eugenics? I asked you a direct question about what form of contraception is ok with you?

Please answer the question. Thank you.

 

[Agnapostate]

In her mind, contraception and eugenics are immortally linked because of Margaret Sanger.

Of course, that principle of historical preservation doesn't seem to work out too well when one attempts to link Christianity with the Inquisition.

 

[del]

So I take it your lack of a response to me means that my identification of your woeful misunderstanding of the law was accurate?

quoting the person you're responding to would help.

 

[sky dancer]

What's the matter with this thread? It's overly WIDE!

 

[Agnapostate]

quoting the person you're responding to would help.

There was only one person in this thread whom I identified as having a woeful misunderstanding or ignorance of the law. Furthermore, I posted directly below that person.

I thought you said that you would be reading this thread from my original on-topic post.

 

[del]

In her mind, contraception and eugenics are immortally linked because of Margaret Sanger.

Of course, that principle of historical preservation doesn't seem to work out too well when one attempts to link Christianity with the Inquisition.

why?

the linkage is well documented.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uprjmoSMJ-o&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uprjmoSMJ-o&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[sky dancer]

Let me get this straight. If we support Roe V Wade, the law of the land, you equate that with supporting eugenics?

A bit of a stretch....................................but then the margins of this thread are blown anyway.