Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
If the parent had the control you believe the parent should have the young woman wouldn't be having sex, dope.Or maybe a girl of 14 will have sex with a 14 year old boy. Or 17 year old young man. Statutory rape is beside the point.
The fertilized egg isn't even a fetus yet while the morning after pill is effective. Now the girl can avoid an abortion. Don't we all want abortions to be rare? Teenagers WILL have sex whether they have access to emergency contraceptives or not. At least this way there may be fewer abortions.
Quit being deluded puritans.
If this were about 18+ people then the puritan thing would be appropriate. This is basically a judge saying piss off to both parents and medical professionals when it comes to children. A parent should have a say in thier childs medical choices. If not let them emancipate the little rug rats when they start growing pubic hair.
The problem here is reverse puritanism, where some people feel the need to have ZERO restrictions on anything involving sex.
Or maybe a girl of 14 will have sex with a 14 year old boy. Or 17 year old young man. Statutory rape is beside the point.
The fertilized egg isn't even a fetus yet while the morning after pill is effective. Now the girl can avoid an abortion. Don't we all want abortions to be rare? Teenagers WILL have sex whether they have access to emergency contraceptives or not. At least this way there may be fewer abortions.
Quit being deluded puritans.
So encouraging our young people to marshall their logic and/or ethics in order to master carnal instinct is pointless, huh?
Kids are gonna screw kids, men are gonna screw men, men are gonna screw boys .....
No sense trying to draw a line? Really?
If believing we shouldn't just surrender in the effort to control our carnal instincts makes me a "deluded puritan" then I'll wear the badge with honor.
It has nothing to do with encouraging carnal urges or carnal urges at all. It has to do with the reality that teenagers have always and will always have sex and allowing them access to emergency contraceptives saves them from becoming parents at, generally, far too young an age to be responsible parents.
You can't legislate morality, right?
And what do men having sex with men or men having sex with boys have to do with energency contraceptives? There are already laws against men having sex with boys, and do you think there should be laws that discourage two consenting adult men from having sex?
The parents in your scenario apparently don't have an interest in what their kids put in their body. And protecting young women from forced birth is more important than placating their stupidity.If the parent had the control you believe the parent should have the young woman wouldn't be having sex, dope.If this were about 18+ people then the puritan thing would be appropriate. This is basically a judge saying piss off to both parents and medical professionals when it comes to children. A parent should have a say in thier childs medical choices. If not let them emancipate the little rug rats when they start growing pubic hair.
The problem here is reverse puritanism, where some people feel the need to have ZERO restrictions on anything involving sex.
So because parents don't establish draconian rules for thier children, thier punishment should be ZERO information about what their daughter is trying to put in thier bodies (from a pharmacist)??
Interesting corner you are painting yourself into with this line of logic.
It never amazes me how some people have such an interest in the sex lives of other people's kids.
Well, that's technically true. Why do you think the traditional colour of nail polish is red, and starts going on at that age?
Really, you're this worked up over the semantics between "women" and "girls"? A bit over the top, don't you think? I'm a pretty good proofreader and I came in to find the "flaw" and came up empty.
Erleichda already.
It betrays the mindset at work. If the issue was about making it legal for a 50 year old to screw a 13 year old, you would notice right away if someone was referring to 13 year old girls as "women who no longer have to face barriers".
You're conflating biology and morality. The fact that a woman/girl/female starts menstruating has nothing to do with 50-year-olds. Lighten up already. It's a freaking word.
Jesus Christ. It's an over the counter medication. There is no reason in the world that it shouldn't be available to anyone that wants it, just like asprin or pepto.
Right wing loons and their stupidity.
The parents in your scenario apparently don't have an interest in what their kids put in their body. And protecting young women from forced birth is more important than placating their stupidity.If the parent had the control you believe the parent should have the young woman wouldn't be having sex, dope.
So because parents don't establish draconian rules for thier children, thier punishment should be ZERO information about what their daughter is trying to put in thier bodies (from a pharmacist)??
Interesting corner you are painting yourself into with this line of logic.
It never amazes me how some people have such an interest in the sex lives of other people's kids.
Then they wonder why so many 11,12,13 14 year olds are having sex.
It's because of stupid people like this Judge, who just gave young teens the freedom to have sex without any consequences or responsibility.
It betrays the mindset at work. If the issue was about making it legal for a 50 year old to screw a 13 year old, you would notice right away if someone was referring to 13 year old girls as "women who no longer have to face barriers".
You're conflating biology and morality. The fact that a woman/girl/female starts menstruating has nothing to do with 50-year-olds. Lighten up already. It's a freaking word.
It is a hell of a lot more than a word. It is the government erasing parental rights and calling children adults.
As they could for bringing contraception to school.Jesus Christ. It's an over the counter medication. There is no reason in the world that it shouldn't be available to anyone that wants it, just like asprin or pepto.
Right wing loons and their stupidity.
Aspirin is an over the counter medication, and kids can get suspended for bringing it to school.
You're conflating biology and morality. The fact that a woman/girl/female starts menstruating has nothing to do with 50-year-olds. Lighten up already. It's a freaking word.
It is a hell of a lot more than a word. It is the government erasing parental rights and calling children adults.
No, that's your extrapolation. And it's a giant leap.
Who's to say definitively that every female 17 years 364 days old is a "girl" and the next day she's a "woman"? That's a completely arbitrary benchmark, and one that does not follow from historical precedent.
In any case, again, you're getting all worked up over a word. Only this, and nothing more.
Here are your priorities:The parents in your scenario apparently don't have an interest in what their kids put in their body. And protecting young women from forced birth is more important than placating their stupidity.So because parents don't establish draconian rules for thier children, thier punishment should be ZERO information about what their daughter is trying to put in thier bodies (from a pharmacist)??
Interesting corner you are painting yourself into with this line of logic.
It never amazes me how some people have such an interest in the sex lives of other people's kids.
So parental rights mean nothing when it comes to anything involving sex, carte blanche? Abortion trumps all?
The problem is that the parents still have to deal with the aftermath of this situation. And before you bring up the "bad parents" scenario, there are all sorts of middle ground here. You would rather have children being exploited by someone other than thier parents if thier parents are pro-life.
What a set of priorities you have.
What hypocrisy do you speak of dicca?I see you're fine with hypocrisy.
Quelle Surprise.
Who's to say definitively that every female 17 years 364 days old is a "girl" and the next day she's a "woman"?
Here are your priorities:The parents in your scenario apparently don't have an interest in what their kids put in their body. And protecting young women from forced birth is more important than placating their stupidity.
So parental rights mean nothing when it comes to anything involving sex, carte blanche? Abortion trumps all?
The problem is that the parents still have to deal with the aftermath of this situation. And before you bring up the "bad parents" scenario, there are all sorts of middle ground here. You would rather have children being exploited by someone other than thier parents if thier parents are pro-life.
What a set of priorities you have.
You'd rather have some poor child who is raped by a family member get permission from said family member for contraceptives just so the government will cover YOUR ass for being a poor parent.
Talk about a nanny state lover. bwahahahahahahaha!
Here are your priorities:The parents in your scenario apparently don't have an interest in what their kids put in their body. And protecting young women from forced birth is more important than placating their stupidity.
So parental rights mean nothing when it comes to anything involving sex, carte blanche? Abortion trumps all?
The problem is that the parents still have to deal with the aftermath of this situation. And before you bring up the "bad parents" scenario, there are all sorts of middle ground here. You would rather have children being exploited by someone other than thier parents if thier parents are pro-life.
What a set of priorities you have.
You'd rather have some poor child who is raped by a family member get permission from said family member for contraceptives just so the government will cover YOUR ass for being a poor parent.
Talk about a nanny state lover. bwahahahahahahaha!
Then they wonder why so many 11,12,13 14 year olds are having sex.
It's because of stupid people like this Judge, who just gave young teens the freedom to have sex without any consequences or responsibility.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Kids are having sex because...this judge...Whaa?
What its going to do is push more of them to do it. Curiosity killed the cat. Now its going to be the kid killing the kid.
