Home - List All Discussions

Pro-choice on child rape

Planned Parenthood, your tax dollars and a dirty little secret

by: whosays

What do you call a 40-year-old man who has sex with a 13-year-old girl?

Answer: A Planned Parenthood customer.

A dirty little secret known by sexual perverts is that Planned Parenthood will help them conceal child sexual abuse from law enforcement – and all it takes is cash. Planned Parenthood knowingly and willingly helps pedophiles to conceal their crimes by quietly disposing of 'the evidence'. If you want proof of this for yourself, then visit http://www.PlannedParenthoodExposed.com/PlannedParenthoodExposed where the evidence is posted for public review.

Thanks to Planned Parenthood the adult men who prey on underage girls are able to conceal their crimes and, therefore, they can continue to their sexual exploitation of minors. Whether it’s a 78-year-old man who is having sex with a 10-year-old (this case occurred in CT) or a 34-year-old sexually abusing his fiancee’s 12-year-old daughter despite her twice becoming pregnant (the same clinic helped him both times), sexual predators know that ‘confidential’ abortions, birth control, etc. are available to help them conceal their crimes.

With the help of taxpayer dollars, Planned Parenthood promotes their services – claiming to be concerned about the welfare of women, even while they ‘look the other way’ when it comes to men sexually abusing the girls who will grow up to be the women of tomorrow. Perhaps before they give Planned Parenthood any more money, Congress should question some Planned Parenthood workers about this under oath…? Is this too much to ask or has adult-child sex become politically correct enough to deserve government support?

reply from: mom2

I found the following article just the other day.... please read...

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/ArticleDisplay.php?id=495

Here is a portion of it....

Confessions of an Abortion Doctor
by (As told to) Cheryl Alkon
From the December 2004 issue.

Ten years ago this month, John Salvi sprayed bullets into two Brookline abortion clinics, killing two people and wounding five. Since then, the number of doctors willing to perform abortions has dwindled, increasing the workload for those remaining. One local obstetrician and gynecologist, whose clinic asked that she withhold her name for safety reasons, now performs as many as 10 abortions a day, twice a week.

One morning years ago, when I was working as a resident, a nurse brought me in to talk to a pregnant girl. When I walked into the room, there was this child -- an 11-year-old. She had come in for a procedure, and it soon became obvious that she had no understanding of sex -- she didn't really understand that she'd even had it, or that it had any connection to her pregnancy. We literally had to teach this girl about what it means to have sex -- about STDS, abstinence, and pregnancy. I remember thinking: In a world where people don't want kids to learn about these things, how can you not give them the choice to terminate a pregnancy? Even if she had chosen to continue the pregnancy and opt for adoption, what would that have done to her own childhood? How can we not provide a child with any education about sex, then force her to become a parent long before she's ready?

According to the article, we do not know if the 11-year old was abused, and I  know this isn't exactly about Planned Parenthood, but it makes me wonder if the child abuse cover-up is happening in all abortion clinics.

You all need to read the complete article.

Hope I didn't change the subject.

reply from: shiprah

First of all prolifers don't force people to be parents -- they already are.  Interesting how this person thinks murdering the girl's baby and performing the most traumatizing procedure ever on an eleven year old is a better option that respond with love to the eleven year old and the baby.

reply from: whosays

First off, on the first point, you are dead wrong. We DO know that the 11-year-old was abused! Even if the 11-year-old willingly took her panties off in exchange for a candy bar or a toy, it is still child abuse. We need to understand that the fact that physical power or threats of harm was not use to "force" the child to do this against her will has NOTHING to do with violating the law against child sexual abuse. Of course these things ARE child abuse, but so are ALL cases where an adult seduces, convinces or otherwise induces a child to agree to participation in sexual activity.

In America, no matter which state one is in, no child can legally "consent" to sexual activity - which is why this is a criminal act and violates the child abuse laws in every state, EVERY time it occurs.

Now, on your second point, YES... non Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are also knowingly and willingly covering-up cases child sexual abuse all across this country. As shown on http://PlannedParenthoodExposed.com/PlannedParenthoodExposed.com, over 90% of the clinics in this country are doing this (and those are just the ones that got caught). This is a HUGH CASH COW for the abortion industry and they have every intention of protecting these men because sexual predators provide a revenue stream that enriches them - but only so long as they help these child molestors remain undetected by law enforcement so they can stay out of jail and remain free to continue their sexual abuse of children.  

reply from: shiprah

First off, on the first point, you are dead wrong. We DO know that the 11-year-old was abused! Even if the 11-year-old willingly took her panties off in exchange for a candy bar or a toy, it is still child abuse. We need to understand that the fact that physical power or threats of harm was not use to "force" the child to do this against her will has NOTHING to do with violating the law against child sexual abuse. Of course these things ARE child abuse, but so are ALL cases where an adult seduces, convinces or otherwise induces a child to agree to participation in sexual activity. In America, no matter which state one is in, no child can legally "consent" to sexual activity - which is why this is a criminal act and violates the child abuse laws in every state, EVERY time it occurs.   

However, we don't know if the eleven year old had sex with an adult.  She could have had sex with another eleven year old meaning it wasn't child abuse.  I know this sounds improbable, but my grandma just retired from teaching in one of our city's poorest school districts, and believe me, its not uncommon for extremely young kids to engage in sexual acts.

reply from: mom2

First off, on the first point, you are dead wrong. We DO know that the 11-year-old was abused!  

The abortionist simply did not tell us.  I can't put words in the article and I didn't say that I didn't think she wasn't abused.  Yes, more than likely she was but as shiprah said, there are young children having sex all the time with other young children.

Regardless, what is abusive is that children are not educated on sex.  It's really hard to swallow the fact that we should be teaching and telling our children about sex at such a young age, but we need to.  

If PP and other clinics were to report child abuse - well, then part of their clients would be gone. It's awful and sickening.

In my state, which received an "F" on abortion laws, a minor must have a parent accompany them for the abortion.  Now, what I see can be a problem with that is .... a young girl, say around 15 comes in for an abortion... the man with her could be around 40 years old or younger and "pose" as her father. Instant cover up.  I would say it happens and has happened more than we want to know.

 

reply from: Christian4life

It is truly sickening that the same people who claim that they are so feminist seem to think that abortion is going to solve the problem of teenage pregnancies, instead of dealing with the actual issues.  I read a statistic recently that over 3/4 of all teenage pregnancies occurred when the biological father was over 21.  This is just horrifying to me, that men in their 20s and 30s are out there seducing 13 and 14 year olds and as a society we do NOTHING except offer to kill the ensuing children.

I have spent a lot of time trying to help out a friend who's 5 year-old daughter is being sexually abused by her biological father on visits, and I find it very ironic that the so-called liberal judge didn't even want to see the evidence in court. 

Yes young girls need to be educated about sex as soon at they are old enough to talk.  They need to be told to stay the heck away from men and never be alone with a boy at all.  It's a sad world when it comes to that but you have to protect your daughters at all costs.  I'm not surprised at all that abortion mills cover up rape, and yet they use that as an excuse for abortion.  They are doing absolutely nothing to combat rape or rapists.  That is NOT feminist.

reply from: chooselife

I just recently saw a news story about a prostitute who turned in her "john" She was at his home doing what prostitutes do and saw videos of him on his computer having sex with A 2 YEAR OLD!! I also recently heard that in Africa tribal doctors have told men that if they have sex with a virgin they will not get AIDS. So in order to ensure they have sex with a virgin men have begun raping 5 MONTH OLD GIRLS!! I cannot tell you how sick to my stomach this makes me.

reply from: shiprah

Africa is a huge continent, and while some tribal doctors have said this, it is very rare for this to happen and is by no means tradition.  This advice is no more indicative of normal African culture than the advice offered by the most perverted of western doctors.  My mom has a degree in black studies and I can assure you, in Africa, rape is a sexual taboo.

reply from: chooselife

Thank you for that perspective shiprah! It is still hard to stomach this happening to even 1 child. I completely agree that every society has their weirdos.....Lord knows we have plenty of them in the USA who think of horrible ways to torture our children.

reply from: Christian4life

Men don't usually rape very very young girls.  It isn't until they are about 5 or 6 that they are even able to.  My friend's daughter told me her dad tried and it wouldn't fit.  I hugged her and tried to hold my tears back for later because I didn't want to scare her.  When she went home I cried for a long time.  It was the hardest thing in the world not to show up to court with a gun and blow the pervert away.  Trying to be Christ-like.

As far as I know the abuse is still going on despite several attempts by the girl's mother and several witnesses to put the guy in jail.  I would appreciate prayer for her from anyone who prays at all.

reply from: whosays

Come on folks, get real! What is rape anyway? I’m not surprised by the ignorance regarding the legal category of rape, because I too was ignorant until I was educated about this. Sadly, it's this sort of ignorance of the facts that allows the abortion industry to get away with so much. Let me give an example to make the point clear.

A 14-year-old girl is brought into the emergency room with suspicious bruises. Her mother says she tripped and fell down the stairs. Her father says she tripped and fell down the stairs. She says he tripped and fell down the stairs and that her 14-year-old boy friend can verify this. Guess what? All of that means nothing. The medical personnel at the hospital will still report it to the police or child protective services for investigation because medical workers are not empowered to investigate. It is the job of the designated law enforcement agency to determine if this story is true or if was concocted to conceal a case of child abuse.

A 14-year-old girl is brought into an abortion clinic for an abortion. Her mother says she had sex with a 14-year-old boy. Her father says she had sex with a 14-year-old boy. The girl says she had sex with a 14-year-old boy and he can verify this. Guess what? UNDER THE LAW all of that means nothing! UNDER THE LAW all medical personal are required to report evidence of POTENTIAL child abuse – they are not empowered to investigate. It is the job of the state’s designated law enforcement agency to investigate to determine if this story is true – or if it was actually concocted to conceal a case of incest (to protect uncle Joe, cousin Freddie or a step-dad who ‘made a mistake’ because he had too much to drink) or to prevent embarrassment because the parents are ‘swingers’ who found out that one of their overnight guests stole away for a little fun with their daughter after the orgy wound down, etc. Wake up people! For goodness sakes, we’ve seen stories of parents caught selling their own children for sexual services over the Internet – how do you think adult-child gets covered up when the girls involved get pregnant?

Now allow me to correct the point of ignorance – NO CHILD CAN CONSENT TO SEX.

Under the law NO CHILD CAN CONSENT TO SEX. Therefore, IN EVERY CASE SEX WITH A MINOR IS A CASE OF STATUTORY RAPE. It’s statutory rape a minor girl has sex with uncle Joe, the soccer coach, the social studies teacher, her step-dad or her mom’s house guest. And it’s still statutory rape if she had sex with 12-year-old Tommy – but in this case, Tommy has an automatic defense under the law - his age - and he will not be prosecuted. (Rape is the way that the law classifies it, because by definition non-consensual sex is rape. While the age set out by law for minors varies from state to state, every state has laws establishing an age defining a child and below which the child can not legally give their consent.)

Adults who have sex with children will want to cover these things up and that is the reason that the states have designate agencies that are supposed to investigate where there is EVIDENCE OF POTENTIAL CHILD ABUSE – in order to catch the adult predators that seek to have sex with minors. However, if everyone is wants to let abortion providers like Planned Parenthood get away with pretending that every underage girl is pregnant by a same-age classmate, then we are throwing open the doors to legalized adult-on-child sex – which by the way PP does promote.

Anyone stupid enough to argue that a minor girl can "consent" to sex, so this is not rape, has to explain why a 12-year-old girl can "consent" to sex with her 11-year-old classmate, but she can’t then also "consent" to sex with the 75-year-old man who she also likes (and why she can’t "consent" when it comes to contracts, tobacco, liquor, etc.).

Like it or not, if there is an underage girl having sex it’s ALWAYS RAPE. And THAT, my friends, is why ANY EVIDENCE OF A MINOR BEING SEXUALLY ACITVE IS EVIDENCE OF POTENTIAL CHILD ABUSE THAT MUST BE REPORTED by medical workers, teachers, and any others that are required to do so under their state’s laws. Again, NO STATE says medical workers get to determine which cases ought to be investigated and which ones don’t need to be investigated. When evidence raises a suspicion of potential abuse, the law says that always has to be reported to a designated agency that CAN investigate the facts and send sexual predators to jail when the fact reveal a case of adult-on-child sex.

That’s our system. If you’ve got a better way to protect children, then let all 50 state legislatures know about it. Until then the best way to protect children from sexual predators (Internet or otherwise) is to get these pedophiles off the streets and keep them in jail where they belong.

Lastly, remember the pro-choice position is the "right to choose" – which includes not only the right to chose to kill the baby but the right to choose to have sex to make the baby in the first place. Which is why they will help conceal cases like the 10-year-old girl who "consents" to sex with a 75-year-old man, a 12-year-old who "consents" to sex with her mother’s 34-year-old fiancée and the 14-year-old who "consents" to trade sex for drugs. But the TRUTH is that they make money by helping to conceal the sexual activity of minors – so no questions can ever be asked (& to hell with the law)!

reply from: shiprah

 
So if a twelve year old girl has consensual sex with an eleven year old boy, he raped her because he's the male child?  She's older.  Why isn't she the rapist?  Two minors having sex isn't necessarily rape.  It's rape when an adult sleeps with a child because the adult is older, bigger, smarter, a person of authority, and has taken advantage of the situation.

reply from: yoda

If a child is unable to consent to sex because of his/her age, then any sex that child has is rape, be it boy or girl. It works both ways.

An underaged child can't be charged with rape in most cases, because of their age. So it's only when one of the sexual partners is above the age of consent (and the other is below that age) that charges can be filed.

But until it is know positively who the sexual partner of an underaged child is, and what the age of that partner is (man or woman), there is a reasonable suspicion that the child has been raped by someone over the age of consent.

reply from: BorisBadanov

I think the confusion here is that we're playing with two defnitions of rape, the legal definition and the definition of common usage. 

In legal terms, rape is simply non-consensual sex.  Because consent is a function of legal status, no one is capable of consent until they reach the age of majority.  Keep in mind, this is a protection of rights more than it is a scientific statement of development.  So, according ot the law all underage sex is non-consensual and therefore rape, even if both parties aren't consenting, but are actively pursueing the behavior.  (i.e. two minors in the back seat of a car)

On the other hand, the common use definition of rape is forced sex.  It has to due more with the actor than with the victim.  Under this definition, unlike the legal definition, you can't accidentally rape someone.  You have to deliberatley force or coerce someone to have sex.  Under the common use of the term, it is possible for two minors to agree to have sex without it being rape -- If they both agree, there is no rapist and therefore no rape.  I think some minors are probably cognitively able to consent to sex -- and they should be punished and held accountable for having sex outsdie of marriage just like other adults should be. 

The problem with teenage sex is not that it is "rape," but that it is fornication.  If two sixteen year-olds are mature enough to decide to get married, then by all means they can consent to having sex.  On the other hand, consent isn't really the issue -- two "consenting" thirty year-olds who aren't married is just as damaging to society as two consenting teens. 

reply from: Christian4life

It doesn't matter if it's a 12 year old girl who swears up and down she only had sex with a 12 year old boy, they still have to report it. 

Health professionals (which they claim to be) are mandatory reporters.  Mandatory reporters (I know because I was one in several of my previous volunteer and paid positions) are just that, MANDATORY REPORTERS.  If you even remotely SUSPECT that a child is being abused in any way YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO REPORT YOUR SUSPICIONS. Period.

Whether that 12 year old is lying or telling the truth is not for Planned Parenthood to say.  THAT IS FOR THE AUTHORITIES TO DECIDE.  If they do not report her pregnancy AT LEAST to social services, if not to the police THEY ARE DELIBERATELY VIOLATING THE LAW. 

reply from: shiprah

I don't doubt that any underage girl coming to an abortion clinic should be investigated.  I'm just saying that if two twelve year olds decide to have sex, yes, it's wrong, but they didn't just rape each other.

reply from: whosays

There is no such thing. Under our present law no person can't "consent" to be someone else's slave, and no minor can "consent" to sex - no more than they can "consent" to being beaten. You can call it anything you like, but the law calls it rape (that is non-consensual sex) because CHILDREN CANNOT LEGALLY "CONSENT" TO SEX AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHILDREN HAVING CONSENSUAL SEX.

Moreover, if a minor can "consent" to sex with another minor, then that minor can "consent" to sex with an adult, unless you are seriously suggest that our legislators rewrite every single one of the laws against statutory rape to say that a 10-year-old can "consent" to sex with a 10-year-old but not with a 15-year-old or a 50-year-old. All such non-sense would only serve to put the children in harm's way more than they already are now.

Pretending that we should ASSUME that children are having sex with children is a dangerous game - especially when the report posted on http://www.ChildPredators.comwww.ChildPredators.com shows that in America today, a junior high school girl is more likely to become pregant by an adult than by a boy her own age. Like it or not THAT is the truth. 

I say, err on the side of protecting children FROM bad choices don’t facilitate children making (and continuing to make) bad choices by letting abortion clinics sell ‘confidential’ services to minors (under the guise of protecting the minor) when that 'confidentiality' always serves to conceal the child's involvement with an activity that they cannot legally consent to participate in to begin with. 

reply from: yoda

Good point, Boris.

reply from: whosays

Actually it's not. The classification of a sexual intercourse as either statutory rape or physically-forced rape only comes up as a derivative issue. The primary issue is a question of CONSENT.

Consent IS the issue. Can we EVER say that a child is able/allowed to give its "consent" to sex? If so, in those cases, the idea of rape as either a legal or a force issue will never even come up. It is ALWAYS AND ONLY after the issue of NON-CONSENT has been raised that we look to the classify a sexual act as rape - legal or otherwise.

So, again, keep your eye on the ball. The question is CONSENT. Are underage children in America going to be allowed to "consent" to have sex with others or not? And if not, then in those cases where underage children do participate in sexual acts EVERY STATE'S LAWS on manditory reporting applies to abortion. This is because, since the child cannot "consent" to sex, EVERY instance of an underage girl being pregnant/seeking an abortion (or seeking a pregnancy test or seeking birth control or needing treatment for a sexually transmitted disease) is EVIDENCE that the child is involved in an UNLAWFUL activity and inorder to PROTECT THEM from the consequences of their bad decisions a decent society doesn't help children conceal and continue their participation in such acts. This is why ALL such cases need to be reported so that the state's designated agency can investigate and then act to protect the child in cases where the other person involved is an adult - which is why we prosecute these adults and label them such things as pedophiles, perverts, sexual predators and child molesters.

But, IF an underage girl can "consent" to sex, then when she "consents" to sex with a 50-year-old child molester  - WHO DOESN"T USE PHYSICAL FORCE, then - as stated in an earlier post on this topic - all of the statutory rape laws that have been written to protect underage girls from such men are worthless. 

reply from: Christian4life

I agree with you completely.  By LAW Planned Parenthood is REQUIRED TO REPORT ANY SUSPICIONS OF CHILD ABUSE.  PERIOD.  They do not, and they are violating the law.  Even if a 10 year old girl comes to them and swears up and down she got pregnant by a 10 year old boy (highly improbable) LEGALLY her case must be investigated by the authorities.  It doesn't matter who did what to whom, they only know that a young girl has had sex and that MUST be reported.

In my humble opinion, if a 10 year old girl is having sex, even if it is with a 10 year old boy, someone is to blame, and it's not her!  I would take a hard look at her family life.

reply from: whosays

The sad part is that only the abortion industry is the only business where the laws designed to protect children can be knowingly, willingly and openly ignored by adults that are seeking to profit off the sales of products & services which they know are used to conceal exploitation of the children.

Shame on law enforcement professionals that refuse to investigate (and prosecute) the pedophile protection practices of Planned Parenthood and other abortionists.

reply from: whosays

Man tells court his marriage to 10-year-old girl is legal (http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/news/shownews.jsp?content=n011973A)

Coming to Ameirca? If the 10-year-old consents, then what's the problem?

reply from: mom2

 Canada is messed up anyway. Look's like the man is into slavery and all of the above.  This story is gross!  I can only hope NOT IN AMERICA!

However in America - a 10 year old can't even have her ears pierced without parental consent -  but she can have an abortion is most states (thank God, not mine) -  what's up?  Any Pro-Choicers out there think that's OK?

reply from: Navynate

Can you say EEEWWWWWWW? That is totally discusting. What kind of a sick person is he? I have a niece who's 13 years old, I can't imagine her being married to a man 40 years older then her. Yet her parents are both very prochoice. Maybe I should send them the article and ask them if they would be Prochoice to man a 40 years older then her to marry her? I don't think so, at least I sure hope that they wouldn't allow her to do that. 

What's next a group of men demanding their rights to have sex with children under 15, oh wait, we already have that. The guys from NAMBLA are already demanding that the age of consent be lowered to a very young age, (I can't remember it right now). If anyone here hasn't heard of NAMBLA, the name says it all. NAMBLA stands for North American Man/Boy Love Association, and yes, they really do mean making love to those who they want to be with, young boys. So we really do have some pretty discusting people already in our midst here in America, so this case a guy 50 year old man  marrying a 10 YO isn't too far from where we are today.      

reply from: whosays

Wanna bet she's pro-choice?

"A 40-year-old Arvada woman who police say wanted to be seen as a, "cool mom", is suspected of supplying drugs and alcohol to high school boys, and having sex with them."
(http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=967b857f-0abe-421a-016d-5ee4a1c62a13&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf)

Just goes to show you that men aren't the only pro-choicers that are pro-choice about to minors being able to 'consent' to having sex with adults.

And she wasn't even a school teacher!

reply from: whosays

Opps, speaking of school teachers, "A 33-year-old teacher was arrested after DNA tests confirmed that her baby was fathered by a 16-year-old former student, authorities said."
(http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/10709974.htm?1c)

How much you want to bet that the boy was a willing participant in the sex act? But does anyone other than child molestors and Planned Parenthood really want to say minors can "consent" to sex? If so, the adult on child sex business of abortion clinics and birth control pushers will really boom!

reply from: Navynate

Who,

You're right only child molesters and Planned Parenthood could ever say that children can consent to have sex. That's why groups like NAMBLA and Planned Parenthood need to be put out of business ASAP. They're both groups that are sick and discusting, they are people who are very sick and twisted in what they believe. 

Planned Parenthood still has yet to disavow themselves Margaret Sanger, it really does tell you how racist they are today. Not only is PP racist, but sexist as well. if you're a man working at a PP clinic then you might have to put up with a very sexist work place as well. I read something about guys being harrassed and made to feel like they weren't wanted there, so that they would leave and that there would be only women working at that particular clinic.

reply from: terry

Just a heads up Navynate,

The case you may be thinking of is in California, and Mark Crutcher just interviewed the attorney, Richard Ackerman, who is bringing a civil rights suit against Planned Parenthood.

To hear the interview, click here, then click the link for the radio program

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/ProlifeRadio/Index.cfm

reply from: mom5

Ok, I must mention a testimony that I read recently on the web.  Probably priestsforlife.org - this woman at age 12 got pregnant by her father.  Her mother and father took her in for an abortion and that was the end of everything according to the parents.  This woman was hurt not only from the incest, but the abortion that she probably was never allowed to talk about until now as an adult.

We talk about protecting the unborn - but we must protect the minors.  Parental consent does not work in cases such as this.  What needs to be done next?  I have no idea, except to REQUIRE all clinics to report abortions under the age of 18 and REQUIRE an investigation... I just don't know!  Then, will that force the abortions back to the so called "alleys".  Which I'm not sure really exists now or even then as much as the Pro-Choicers want us to think.  (another story)

I just had to get this out of my mind for a second.  We may think this is rare, but is it really?  Pro-Choicers want to keep abortion legal for this reason, but how is that really helping the situation?  I don't have all the answers, but this story made me sick when I read it.

reply from: whosays

And yet another 'teacher's union' - a 27-year-old teacher has sex with 13-year-old student. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C146797%2C00.html)  

Of course the real question is how many of these statutory rape cases will never be reported and in how many cases are adults able to conceal their sexual abuse of children with the help of Planned Parenthood? (http://PlannedParenthoodExposed.com)

reply from: yoda

Yes, I noticed on one newsreport today that they called it "consensual sex"........ as if a 13-year old could consent.

reply from: whosays

Predator pleads the Planned Parenthood defense after getting 9-yr-old pregnant: "I never did it by force."
(http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/centralphoenix/articles/0218ext-vendor0218Z4.html)

Soooo... that would make it... "consensual", then?

Welcome to Planned Parenthood's Teen Wire world of empowered women making their own choices.

reply from: whosays

Finally someone is looking into the practice of abortion clinics helping to conceal child sexual abuse! 

From: http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/local/crime_courts/10977397.htm

The (KS) attorney general wants to look at the (abortion clinic) records to search for evidence of... suspected child sexual abuse.

State Sens. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, and Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, released a statement Wednesday afternoon supporting Kline's efforts.

"If a child the age of 10, 11 or 12 years of age seeks an abortion in Kansas, by law that child has been raped, and we believe the state has the obligation to investigate that rape, bring the rapist to justice and prevent further exploitation of the child," the statement read.

(Abortion clinic workers, http://www.ClinicWorker.com, take note!)

reply from: prolifejedi

Yes finally someone is taking action.  This story was also on operationrescue.org and unfortunately, Dr. "death" Tiller has a fan who was "compassionate with me when I was having an abortion due to rape" and if she would have "continued the pregnancy it would have harmed my mental health". 

Unfortunately, PP covers up these crimes (statutory rape) because they would probably get closed down or fined or SOMETHING for not reporting them.  I remember reading a story of a 23 year old disguising her voice to sound like a "13 year old who was was impregnanted by her, I think it was 20 year old boyfriend" and they said they would keep quiet.  I think it was in the newspaper thing I got at a pro life rally - "What you should know about planned parenthood".    

reply from: mom5

Welcome prolifejedi to the forum.

Thanks whosays for the links... about time someone looked...

sounds like the state of Kansas has got alot going on in the abortion industry right now...

reply from: whosays

You are referring to the Child Predator investigation (http://www.ChildPredators.com) which blew the lid off of this dirty little secret of the abortion industry. If you'll take a moment to click back to the post that started this thread, you'll see that the reason that they agree to conceal these crimes is because of the MONEY -- that is what their being paid to do, to secretly dispose of the evidence of the crime (under the guise of 'confidential services') and to turn a blind eye to the sexual abuse of underage girls.

reply from: mom5

whosays - can you believe that the pro-choicers are saying this is a violation of patient privacy rights?... (I just read on a pro-choice forum)... I say for who... the Child Predator?  Just sickening!

reply from: prolifejedi

Some of the more radical pro choicers go way overboard. They are seriously in denial and in need of our prayers. There are so many of them that deny these things are happening. They shout things "safe and legal and rare" and they act like anyone who suggests abstinence education for teens is wacko. Its because the more teens that abstain, the less abortions there will be, the less money PP makes!

reply from: jcgspam

Ok, I will probably be in the minority here, but.... I abhor abortion, I absolutely do. I think it's sick, evil, you name it. I also think that children need to be protected from sexual abuse. The problem that I have with this is... As the article reads, there is no evidence that any of these 90 patients are children and it doesn't seem like they have any evidence that abuse occurred. They are simply requesting records to see if any abuse may have occurred? The conservative in me, the person who fears government intrusion in my life, has a problem with that. I would have a major problem if people started pulling the intensely private and personal records of every pregnant woman in this country to see if they were being abused (domestic violence is much more likely when you are pregnant). My medical records are nobody's business but mine and my doctor's. We have the bill of rights to protect us from the government. That's why, no matter how guilty the person in question is, the police and the courts must follow proper legal procedures. If you go in to a house without a search warrant and find tapes of a man having sex with a 5 year old, it is inadmissable in court and the person will get off. This, to me, is the same unfortunate issue. We cannot go busting in and demand patient records without evidence that a crme has actually occurred. Now, if a parent complained that their child was pregnant and received an abortion and no investigation followed, that's different. Subpoena her records and investigate. But to demand records without compliants or hard evidence seems a little too"big brother" for me.

reply from: prolifejedi

jcgspam,

I think they are investigating if any of these 22 weeks and later abortions were done on 10, 11 or 12 year olds. In Kansas, that is considered RAPE (if a child that age had sex..............) and is against the law. I think they are also investigating which abortions resulted from Rape. If PP doesn't report Rape cases to the police, they would get in trouble, right?

I don't think the medical records would be fully revealed. They would keep names private. They just are investigating to see how many abortions were because of rape and how old the person was. I think what brought this on was the death of that 19 year old Texas woman who died following complications after the abortion.

reply from: yoda

jcgspam: You say they must have evidence before they ask for evidence? No, that's not how the law works. There must be "reasonable grounds for suspicion", not evidence. If they already had the evidence, why would they need any more?

reply from: jcgspam

Yoda, I apologize, you are correct. I think that is the terminology I was searching for. For instance, I find out my 12 year old had an abortion at said clinic... therefore I go and ask the police to investigate, because under the law she was raped. Then they can subpoena her records and go from there. Unfortunately, I don't think you can request the records of all women who have had a late term abortion, because you feel like some of them may have been underage. That to me doesn't show possible cause for suspiscion. In addition, if you read other articles about this, the clinic is offering to submit the records with some information (i.e. names) blocked out. I think this is acceptable. Then if any of those people are underage, investigate those files more closely. But to request the private medical records of all women who have had a late term abortion at this clinic in the hopes of finding out of any were underage? I don't see how we can reasonably do that. Again, even if you have a known child molester, you can't break into their house and search without some reasonable grounds of suspicion (a complaint, seeing their car parked in proximity to a crime scene, etc...) It's not that I feel abortion is a good thing or a thing worth protecting. I really don't. But if we can break into private medical files of those procedures we find abhorrent and reprehensible, what's to say the next step won't be something less reprehensible? I just don't like government intrusion into private files without reasonable grounds.

reply from: yoda

I think perhaps a better solution might be to have the court appoint a neutral third party to examine the records and report on any underaged patients records. But I have no doubt that the refusal of Tiller to allow any access at all is immoral and probably criminal. Here's an interesting article I found today:

Hidden Hypocrisy: Tiller Changes Privacy Statement on Web Site after Media Inquiries

February 26, 2005

Wichita, KS – Late-term abortionist George Tiller, changed the privacy statement on his web site yesterday, removing mention of his policy to forward the names of abortion patients to his political action committee, ProKanDo, for fundraising purposes. Kansans for Life had released a statement early Friday revealing the hypocrisy of such a policy in light of Tiller’s refusal to release the names of underage patients to the Kansas Attorney General who is investigating allegations of child sex abuse.

After receiving the information from KFL, a reporter contacted Tiller spokesperson Julie Burkhart on Friday morning to inquire about the policy. The policy was removed from the web site by early afternoon.

Burkhart is also the director of ProKanDo, and would likely have been the recipient of the abortion patient names. If any of those patients gave donations to ProKanDo of $50 or more, their names and addresses were reported to the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission. Operation Rescue has obtained copies of these reports under the Kansas Open Records Act .

full story: http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/000180.shtml

reply from: whosays

From the front page of ProlifeAmerica.com:

"Notice that abortion clinics don't deny that they violate the law and conceal child abuse, but rather that abortion "privacy" protects adult-on-child sex."

This subheading under the story http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3318  (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3318) says it all.

Abortion supporters have to change the subject because they can't respond to the charge without perjurying themselves or admiting that they DON'T REPORT CHILD ABUSE. (And the reason they don't is because then abortion clinics would loose all the MONEY that they take in from selling the "privacy" that is being used to conceal the dirty deeds of the perpetrators who commit child rape.)

reply from: Navynate

Who,

I wouldn't be surprised that they would deny doing that, but then again they lie alot anyway, so it would just be another one. I guess when they've been burned a few times by saying something and then have it proved completely wrong, then they are less likely to open their mouths and say something that can be proven false. They won't deny something that's obvious to everyone. They don't want to look like the ideiots they are by saying something that will come back and bite them in the backside. They would really be in deep trouble if they denied it and then they're proven that they lied totally and completely. It's part of their game plan, if they can't lie about something, then change the subject everyone is talking about. Take the focus off of the truth at all costs. They want everyone to talk about privacy, well privacy isn't the issue here, it's whether or not child molesters being protected by prochoice groups or not? That's the question to be answered. And they don't want to answer that question. What are they hiding completely?

reply from: jcgspam

Yoda, I had not yet read that. It's total hypocrisy if he will turn client records over to a fundraising organization but not in a criminal investigation. I agree, I'm sure they are hiding something. I think knowing exactly how the investigation was being conducted would probbaly make me more comfortable with it, but for now I am going to say that I think I don't know enough about it to make an informed decision. What I will say is that I hope if there is child abuse being covered up, I hope it comes to light so that the involved parties are punished and the children are taken care of.

reply from: anyboy

I am curious on something. Maybe I should make a new thread about it.
I'm not sure I understand this but I think you are saying that minors who have been raped or abused are getting abortions and the clinics are covering up the records of this. Right?
My question is kind of off the topic, but some of you were saying that a minor girls cannot consent to sex because of being a minor and so if they get pregnant it's considered rape. My question is, what do you feel should be done with the children of these minors, once they are born. If you were to outlaw the option of abortion. If a girl is too young to consent to sex and if abortion is not an option, surely shes too young to be parenting a child of her own one would think. 
So do you favor forced removal of the children from the custody of these raped child-mothers? Or do you just let them keep the babies and try to raise them or what?
It seems inhumane to force a raped child to bear offspring, then forcibly remove this offspring and place it in the custody of another family against her will. One wonders how much suffering and victimization an innocent child can be expected to bear, and survive. At the same time, can society allow an eleven, twelve or thirteen year old to have sole responsibility for parenting a baby? If the father is a rapist then he hopefully will be in prison and not involved in the parenting effort.
Would the correct route be to try to convince the raped girls to bear these children and then give them up voluntarily to someone else? What if they refuse one or the other of these things. Refuse to bear a rapists child or refuse to give it away once its born. At that point does the law step in and strong-arm them into compliance or what?
thinking about a child being raped, empregnated, forced to bear a child and then forced to give it up against her will makes me wonder exactly how much born children are expected to sacrafice for unborn children. in other words is the value of a unborn child so much greater than the value of a child who is say twelve years old that we are willing to destroy the twelve year old physicaly and mentally and throw her life away for the sake of the unborn. it makes me wonder why even bother saving anyone if the life of a raped BORN child is forfeit in favor of the life of a rapists unborn child. im sure she could get some counseling and whatnot after the fact but i doubt it would help. I'm wondering about possible solutions to this problem and no I don't have any ideas on it, that's why I'm asking. 

reply from: Navynate

If anyone wants to be shocked beyond belief then they can go to Bush V. Choice and then go to the one about the UN and then scroll down to read some of the ladies their saying that if women want to be prostitutes that they should have that right. And no I'm not kidding. Lucio said that it was wrong to force them to not be prostitutes. And that do-gooders (I'm assuming she's referring to prolifers) is that they do evil things mainly because the do-gooders is what that they do is unwanted-of course, there are other much more unprecedently unfortunate results to what may be thought of as a decent act, but that is more (something), the printer cut off one side of the sheet I copied) the exception then the norm. And she said that there are people who actually enjoy being be sex workers.  OK, you can pick you jaw off the floor, I was the same way when I read that. And then another one of them said that the world was far more complex and more grey place than my moralising could ever hope in it's wildest dreams to adequately describe. Let me see, who's been to alot of countries where these things happen alot and worked with people who would be their clients as well? The two or three who are preaching to me about how wrong it is to say that women shouldn't be sold for sex are teenagers, (who haven't experinced the real world yet) who don't have a blooming clue to what they're saying.               

reply from: whosays

Teacher Accused of Sex Abuse

From: http://www.wowktv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=1300

Middle school teacher is in police custody after allegedly confessing to sexual misconduct with five of her students.

In sex-ed aren't the kids taught that it's ok - it's natural, it's their right - to do this? 

The only question that ever matters is was it safe sex or not! Right?

reply from: whosays

Opps, an even worse story... a whole ring got caught! (Good thing law enforcement didn't have to rely on the records of abortion clinics to catch this bunch.)

"nearly four dozen babies and children were raped, sexually abused and prostituted by their parents"
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0%2C1280%2C-4839248%2C00.html)

Do you think this kind of thing can't happen in America? And when their little girls need abortions, pregnancy tests, birth control or treatment for sexually transmitted diseases they can rely on pro-choice abortion clinic operators like Planned Parenthood to help them conceal the abuse - because the clinics can be counted on to hide behind a claim of "privacy" and stonewall law enforcement investigations (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3318!) when it comes to the records of underage children.

reply from: Navynate

Who,

What this really does prove (the case in Kansas) is that PP and other prochoice groups lie when they say that they care about women and helping them. If they really did care then they would report who the guys are who got those girls pregnant to be able to get an abortion to the cops themselves. They would report those guys themselves, the AG wouldn't have to go to court to get them to give them the records to get those scum bags. And then to add insult to injury they claim that those guys deserve to have their privacy protected. Only groups who care about criminals like that could say something like that. Other groups like the ACLU and other groups who care about the kinds of people who belong behind bars for the rest of their lives. Anyone with 2 brain cells in their head should be able to figure out that PP and other proabortion groups like them that are fighting the AG in Kansas, really don't give a blank (darn) about the girls who are being sexually abused by these guys. Anyone should be able to figure that out. But there are people who can't and won't figure that out. They are so much into their messed up beliefs that they wouldn't know the truth if it tapped them on nose and introduced themselves to them. Then again, there are people who have less ability then someone with only 2 brain cells working. I really hope that alot of people see what they are doing and realize that they are protecting people who should be locked up for the rest of their lives and then decide that they do not want anything to do with any prochoice group ever again. That is my hope and prayer.   

reply from: terry

Anyone that wants to follow the progress of the current criminal investigation of the cover-up of child rape at abortion clinics, visit http://www.ProlifeAmerica.com and click on one of the radio interviews posted in the box labeled "Abortion Clinics Hide Child Rape" which is on the top of the right-hand side of the page.

Mark Crutcher will lay out the evidence of that shows that abortion clinics are violating the law and will let you know the latest status of the criminal investigation in Kansas as well as in other states.

reply from: yoda

anyboy, how can you possibly expect a "one size fits all" answer to that quesiton? As in any other custody situation, all the circumstances must be considered, and a solution found that fits the individual circumstances of each case. There will be some cases in which the mother wants to keep the child, and has the support form her family to do that. There will be others in which the opposite will be the case.

But first, and foremost, the killing must stop.

reply from: whosays

Indiana joins the fray! http://www.christian-underground.com/archive/read.php?sid=840 - The Indiana Attorney general is seeking the abortion clinic medical records of dozens of 12 & 13-year-old child abuse victims so he can attempt to prosecute sexual predators, but Planned Parenthood sues to stop him. (http://www.christian-underground.com/archive/read.php?sid=840)

Hey pro-choicers, what are they hiding?

You @#$% well know what they're hiding, they're hiding the fact that they make plenty of money by protecting the "privacy" of the men who sexually abused these 12 & 13-year-old girls.

Planned Parenthood wants to talk about "privacy" and "rights" in order to avoid talking about the fact that it has knowingly and willingly been violating the laws which were designed to protect children from sexual abuse by adults and has aided and abbetted the men who continue to perpetrate this abuse - and, of course, continue to put up the cash when Planned Parenthood "services" their victims.
(Visit http://www.ChildPredators.com to hear the proof from their own lips!)

For more on http://www.prolifeamerica.com/AG_investigation_of_abortion_clinics.cfm, click here.

reply from: Christian4life

Ergh I wrote a whole big long post here and when I hit send it just showed up empty like that.

Anyway what I was trying to say was that I looked up the stats and WORLDWIDE (which includes malnourished women with no access to medical care of any sort) the statistics for very young girls actually dying from "maternal" fatality is only about 3%.

The statistics are so skewed on that though because they INCLUDE the REPORTED illegal and legal abortion fatalities, and we have no way of knowing how much of it is from giving birth and how much from abortion.

At any rate, you can easily infer from that that in a place like America where anyone at all can get free access to excellent pre, post, and during labor care, the chances of a 11 or 12 year old surviving labor are well above 98%.

reply from: Navynate

Who,

You are exactly right, they do know what they are hiding. They are hiding the fact that they are violating the law and that they are protecting child molestors and child rapists as well. I posted a post about that too in Bush VS Choice. My last sentence was, "It must be nice to be on the side of child molestors and child rapists"? I don't care how mad prochoice people get, it's the truth. That's what they are doing, and they care more about the money coming from these scum bags paying for an abortion for a girl under 14 who they are having sex with (which is a crime in almost all states if not every state) then the poor girls who's having sex with these scum bags. It shows what kind of people and organizations they really are and where their priorities really are as well. And guess what side the ACLU takes in these issues? The wrong one, surprise, surprise, the side of the scum bags and the abortion clinics.        

reply from: shiprah

You're right.  My grandmother has been retired only one year from teaching in one of our nation's poorest school districts. At her school, it wasn't uncommon to actually have pregnant elementary school students -- like pregnant ten year olds and younger.  As sad as that is, these girls are physically able to carry the babies to term.  Unfortunately, it happens all the time.

reply from: Navynate

Ship,

Why aren't the parents of these girls telling them not to have sex at that age? Do they want to be a grandparent before they turn 30? That's just plain stupid that they aren't being told not to have sex and if they are, that those kids aren't listening to their parents and obeying them. I don't know if it was expected or not that when I was growing up to not have sex until I was married. But maybe I just knew that it was wrong to have sex before marraige. I think that I knew what the Bible said about it and then I wasn't going to go against what the Bible said. Your life is so much better when you don't have sex outside of marrage, it causes so many problems when you do have sex outside of marrage. Even if you have to turn 40 before you get married and wait the whole to have sex for the first time ever. It's so much better that way then having sex with several people before you get married.      

reply from: shiprah

Navynate, you'd be surprised how some parents feel about being a parent at 30.  Before my mom retired from child psychology, she worked with a twenty-one year old grandmother.  Welfare had made all three generations of this family come in (the grand-mom, the mom who was a child, and the baby-- the great-grandmom was in her early thirties) and they didn't even feel they needed my mom's help.  Welfare had threatened to cut off the family's support if they didn't get help, but all they could say is that they were surprised the girl who had just had a baby had waited so long to become a parent.  She was the oldest person ever to be a mom in their family.  The family didn't consider themselves immoral.  They were just ignorant. I don't mean it offensively, but those of us blessed enough not to be impoverished don't realize how deep ignorance is.  If pregnancy before your teenage years is your family tradition and all you see and you know, you think its normal and healthy.

Most of the parents in my grandmother's school district were in jail, drug dealers, theives, or prostitutes.  The kids whose parents were in jail were usually being raised by grandparents too old and sometimes too senile to have the energy to do the job properly.  There are many poor kids who don't behave this way, but this particular district was just horrible.  My grandmother would talk to girls about self-respect and healthy sexuality -- waiting untill marriage, and she and other teachers like her changed a lot of lives.  One student she had went from being impoverished to being a principal.  Another was an ex-con (at age 12) and she made him a good student just by caring about him.  She's helped many students.  Sadly, Navynate, sometimes no one cares about a student but his or her teachers.  However, I've visited poor schools (and there's a famous one called Kipp Academy) where every kid goes to college.  I've seen poor schools have strong parent and teacher support and thus, great student success.  There are new experimental schools being created, like boarding schools for inner city kids and schools for just one gender where teachers stay with the same students for several year blocks.  At my grandmother's school, teachers are beginning to act as mentors to kids, seeing them outside of school to help them with their personal lives, increase their self-esteem, teach them judgement and morals, and prepare them for sucess.  As we speak, innovative people are creating and have implemented successful ways of dealing with these problems.  I know these young kids getting pregnant is sad, but the fact that these kids have hope gives me joy.  A ten year old can get pregnant and have a baby (thank God safely) and still have her life turned around.  One thing my grandmother's stories about teaching have taught me, as that while there's plenty of ignorance and misfortune in the world, but there's whole a lot more hope and possibility.

reply from: Navynate

Ship,

It sure doesn't help a whole heck of a lot when you have morons like PP or NARAL telling kids that they have every right to have sex and that they can't be expected to wait until they get married before having sex for the first time. They basically tell them, "Here's a condom and go at it, we can't expect you to not have sex, so you might as well be safe?" You would think that not having sex were tougher then building a rocket shipe from some spare parts in a junk yard. That's just plain stupid and in some ways almost criminal for what they're doing to these kids. They support protecting men who have sex with girls under 14 years from being prosecuted by attorney generals in Indiana and Kansas. When those men get those girls pregnant. Is that just plain crazy or what? It tells us what kind of people prochoice groups really are. It also tells you what kind of people they really are when they oppose parental notification when a teenage girl trys to get an abortion. They also support the government paying for abortions too. What kind of drugs are prochoice groups on to oppose parental notification, support kids getting condoms in schools and free access to other contraception as well. And then get upset with every single sex ed course that is abstinence based gets a dime of money. They still get a huge % of the money for sex education anyway, but it's still not enough, they want it all.    

Ship, I can see why they would have sex from such a young age, when those idiots from PP and NARAL tell them that Abstinence won't work and that they can't be expected to follow that, then they don't think that they can wait or be expected to wait. But the truth is that anyone can wait until they're married to have sex for the first time. If I can wait until I get married (and I turned 40 last December) before having sex then anyone can wait to have sex before getting married. I've messed up a few times, but I didn't make the ultimate mistake as far as sex goes and have intercourse. I really want to get married so that I can do that, but it's worth the wait until I am married. But not if you listen to PP and NARAL. But they're wrong about so much, so that this is just another issue that they're wrong about.   

reply from: Christian4life

The reason I wrote that statistic is because so many people think that just because a girl is young when she gets pregnant she is automatically going to die in labor and ought to go abort the baby to save her life.  It's a bunch of nonsense when you look at the actual statistics and the fact is that in America most of the stats we can get on maternal fatalities are a bunch of hooey.

They almost always INCLUDE abortion fatalities in those numbers.  I find it interesting that we are one of the only countries that does that, and then you go compare our maternal fatality rates with other countries who list them seperate from abortion fatalities, and wow, whattdya know, there's are 3 to 4 times LOWER than ours, in spite of our excellent prenatal care. 

I agree with you totally Nate because little girls can be being raped and go to PP and have abortions and not even tell thier mothers - even if their mothers or dads would go kick butt if they knew about it, or start keeping a better eye on their daughter to make sure she isn't hanging around a bunch of 24 year old guys.  They SHOULD be reporting to the authorities AND the parents. But PP just keeps their mouths shut and calls it a privacy issue when in fact it is concealing child abuse.  I find it very hypocritical that the same people who are cracking down on the Catholic church for concealing child molestation are turning the other way when it comes to Planned Parenthood covering up child rape.

When a young girl is pregnant the most compassionate and safest thing for her is to make sure she has excellent prenatal care and loads of emotional support so she can do what's best for herself and the child.  But I guess some people think there is nothing wrong with little girls getting raped or coerced by adult men, and the only thing wrong with it is when they get pregnant.

reply from: Christian4life

Nate, you seem like a really nice guy and that is remarkable that you could wait so long for marriage!  Have you ever tried an internet match service like e-harmony.com?  I'm not trying to imply anything and I hope you aren't offended, I know some people think you shouldn't go looking for love.  But my best guy friend found his wife through that service and they really are a perfect match.  If I weren't married already I would probably try it myself because it matches you up with people who have the same values as you  on things that are important.  If you like them then you can email and just be friends or meet or whatever, it is a lot less pressure than finding a date in a bar or something.  I met my husband over the internet by accident and those kind of relationships can work, especially if you are shy around new people like I was.  Just a thought!  Whatever you do I hope you find a nice wife someday!!!

reply from: whosays

Way to go, Nate! That's telling it like it is.

You said it! In Kansas the rep for the aboriton clinics being investigated by the AG has publicly stated that they WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAW, which makes you wonder just how much money they're making off of child rape to be willing to take such a stand. Must be a lot.

 

reply from: whosays

Looking back on this post, I wanted to clarify a point on an issue that was raised earlier herein.

So says you. And surely so says Planned Parenthood and all other pro-choice sex pushers. And, if there was no force involved, even the participating minors would likely express their agreement with this sentiment.

But, to this day, the legislatures in all 50 states say otherwise. They have expressed their will in law and the law in all 50 states says an underage child CANNOT consent to sex, which of course therefore means that ANY act of sex with a minor is NOT CONSENSUAL - i.e., without their consent. And like it or not, the word that is used for when one person has sex with another person without their consent is rape. End of debate. This wheel does not need to be re-invented. 

No physical restraint or threating force need be involved at all -- the participant in the act can even do of their own volition -- and it is still rape, if they did not "consent". One need only consider any of the date-rape prosecutions where the rapist had sex with a willing victim, but because the victim was under the influence of the date rape drug or some other substance, the rapist is still prosecuted because the law says that the victim could not legally consent.

And, as for your red herring issue of minors having sex with minors, NO minor is ever prosecuted for child rape because, under the law in all 50 states, a minor has an AUTOMATIC defense against this because of his age. Again, like it or not, THAT is the way the law in America works and I suggest that it would be better if we would just start enforcing the law rather than pretending that we need to worry about protecting minors from the law -- especially since the law has already made provision for this.   

Wrong. Nope. Nada. Not! You still miss the point. It's is not rape because of the things you suggest.

It's rape when an adult has sex with a child because the child can not legally consent.

reply from: Navynate

Thanks Christian4 life for the nice compliment. Actually I was in e-Harmony for awhile, but it got too expensive to keep doing that. I think that it cost about 30 bucks a month, more then I could afford. I joined another group, Christian Singles Connection, I paid for 3 months and I'll let it lapse when it does. I met one lady from Houston who I'm sending e-mail to a few times a day, and I would love to go see her sometime after this semester is over and before summer school starts. I try not to think about having a GF too much, I don't have a ton of time anyway and whenever I do think about that alot I just get bummed and frustrated that I'm still single at 40. And I need to spend more time on the books and less time doing other things. I should post stuff here when I have free time and not when I should be reading or getting other class work done. Maybe things will work out with the lady in Houston. I'm trying to be patient too and  not work too hard at getting one. It's never good when you do that at all.  

reply from: whosays

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C154109%2C00.html, bound and buried alive…

Some sex predators kill their victims, but http://www.childpredators.com/TheProblem.cfm

reply from: desiree

I am sorry but I have to speak up here....no we do not know the girl was abused....she verry well could have gotten preg, by a 13 year old boy...........whom she willingly had sex with. And in that case it wouldnt have been abuse....but chances are she was probally molested by a relative or family friend that senero happens alot more, When i was in middle school 2 of my class mates both 13 had sex and the girl got preg..the boysfather sent him to a detention center and the girl did have her baby and her mother helped her raise it, I see her around town sometimes with her little girl, I asked her once about the father she says she hasnt seen or heard from him or his father sence he got sent away.

reply from: whosays

Ever heard the phrase, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse?" Well it's certainly no excuse for making ignorant statements about the law, so let's contrast what the law ACTUALLY SAYS with your pro-choice-13-year-olds-can-consent-to-have-sex liberal OPINION about the way the world should be run.

Since it's hard to believe that one would not be able to understand the facts stated earlier on this matter, I'll have to presume that you overlooked them, so I'll repeat them here so you can't miss them this time. Here we go...

Despite the wishes of Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice sex pushers - including those like http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=67220, like it or not, the FACT is that the elected legislatures in all 50 states have determined that an underage child cannot legally consent to sex and, therfore the crime of child rape (or child abuse or statutory rape depending on the state) occurs whenever a minor is involved in sexual activity -- even if there was no force involved & even if the participating minor(s) "wanted it".

Let me repeat that, by law in all 50 states, an underage child CANNOT consent to sex -- which of course therefore means that ANY act of sex with a minor is NOT CONSENSUAL - i.e., without their consent. And, like it or not, the word that is used for when one person has sex with another person without their consent is rape.

[Again, no physical restraint or threating force need be involved at all - the participant in the act can even do of their own volition - and it is still rape, if they did not "consent". One need only consider any of the date-rape prosecutions where the rapist had sex with a "willing" victim, but because the victim was under the influence of the date rape drug or other substance the rapist is still prosecuted because the law says that the victim couldn't legally consent.]

And these laws are still violated even when a minor has sex with another minor, however in such cases the participating minors are not prosecuted under these laws because a minor is given an AUTOMATIC defense which prevents them from being prosecuted under these.

Again, like it or not, THAT is the way the law in America is currently set up to protect children from "abuse" by adults who want to pretend that a underage child has the right-to-choose, i.e. consent (in order that they might obtain either pleasure or profit from sexually active children).

Now if they'll just start enforcing these laws against the predators that count on Planned Parenthood to covertly dispose of the DNA evidence of their crime, we can get these monsters off the streets -- thought admittedly it will cost PP quite a bit lost of revenue if we do! 

reply from: desiree

well whosays...like it or not..........If two {children have sex} it is Not rape if both were willing,,I am deff, not saying it is right by anymeans because god knows it isnt..and the law isnt right about alot of things such as letting pepole murder thair babies.And I think most of us agree about that one. and I realize that ignorance is no excuse for the law. That was not the arguement it was simply that we dont know for sure if the girl was raped..and trust me there is a big ...diff between consintual sex between minors and between a minor and an adult. The law says a child can not have sex rather it be with a minor or an adult...that u are right about I am not arguing with you.
'

reply from: whosays

All of the brilliant (and not so brilliant) legal minds that created the laws to protect children beg to differ with you.

"Child" rape, "child" abuse,"statutory" rape -- these are the terms which - like it or not - do apply when a minor is involved in illegal sexual activity, and "date" rape when a person of adult age "willingly" has sex with a person, but could not legally consent because they were 'under the influence' of drugs or booze.

Write your own dictionary if you want, but this IS the case.

When the 75-year-old man in CT had sex with a 9-year-old girl, the fact that the girl was a "willing" participant in the act did not classify the act as "consensual", yet you still insist on using "consensual" to apply to acts of sex involving underage children, which it never can.
 
The law says that an underage child cannot consent, so again you are confusing the issue.
 
And the age of the other participant(s) doesn't magically change this. To pretend that an underage child is suddenly endowed with the ability to "consent" just because they participate in sex with another underage child is silly - it's the equivilant of saying that it's okay for children of any age to have sex (i.e., they can "consent") so long as they do so with someone their own age (or close to it). Come on! You can't really think that is best for the children, do you?

reply from: whosays

How much you wanna bet that http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050504/D89SKLCG0.html?

Any takers?

The AMA should drum every one of these &$#*#$% permanently out of the profession, but then again if the AMA wasn't morally bankrupt it would do the same to every abortionist!

reply from: BorisBadanov

Wow. just "Wow."

I facetiously suggested we wait for "unwanted" children to grow older before we kill them. This isn't too far off from that, is it?

No, the unwanted foster kids got used as guinea pigs instead -- some even died from these experimental treeatments.

I can just hear the rationalizations piling up -- "well, they were going to die of AIDS, anyway!" So we measure these kids worth and dignity by the diseases they have?!?!?

And the worst part is -- no criminal charges, no suspension of the research, no withdrawal of funds or medical licenses or anything.

I'm against capital punishment on principle, but conducting dangerous scientific experiments on diseased children should make a person eligible for the highest punishment in the land. To make matters worse, I hope everyone realizes that today is "Holocaust Remembrance Day" The phrase "Never again!" sure is sounding hollow.

Makes you down right proud to be an American, doesn't it?

reply from: whosays

FL Judge backs "Child Predators for Choice"?, is the question that this story from ProlifeAmerica.com should have all pro-lifers asking:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pabortion05may05,0,192340.story?coll=sfla-news-palm

Why hasn't 28-30-year-old predator who impregnated 13-year-old been arrested?

Now THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION?

It is well known that http://www.childpredators.com/TheProblem.cfm than by a boy near her own age. So what was done with this knowledge?

Does this mean that this FL judge ordered an abortion for this 13-year-old girl KNOWING that his action would destroy the DNA evidence (the baby) that could put a sexual predator in jail?

Are pro-choice judges so adamantly pro-abortion that they don't care that abortions on minors are used to conceal the actions of adult sexual predators having sex with underage girls? Or do they figure that by turning-a-blind-eye to the fact of the epidemic of adult-on-child-sex they can pretend that they are not assisting these criminals perpetrate this abuse simply because they pretend that who got the girl pregnant is not a question that needs to be asked?

Check the court records? Before ordering this abortion did this Florida judge ask who got this 13-year-old girl pregnant? Did he care? Did he stop to think for a moment that she CANNOT LEGALLY CONSENT TO SEX and therefore it might be appropriate for someone associated with the Florida 'JUSTICE' system to take a look at who the perpetrator was before he ordered this child's abortion?

IF THIS JUDGE ordered this abortion and it can be shown that he did so without taking any steps to help prosecuters discover the identity of the father (such as ordering the retention of DNA from the baby as Kansas has just done with their new Child Rape Protection Act ), then THIS JUDGE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED for using the judicial system to help conceal a crime?

And if this judge's defense is, "I didn't think it was my place to ask" or "I didn't ask because this child has a 'right to privacy' (which aslo protects any adult that she chooses to have sex with)" or any other such drivel, then this judge is TOO STUPID to be recieving taxpayer funds in order to 'play' judge - and for this reason alone THIS JUDGE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.

If there is a single self-professed pro-life legislator in the Florida legislature, then they should introduce a bill to IMPEACH THIS JUDGE - which would send a message to black-robbed pro-aborts in Florida and elsewhere, that they will no longer be allowed to pretend that the sexual predator issue doesn't matter when the issue of abortion involves underage girls.

"Child Predators for Choice!" Or should that be "Pro-choice Judges for Child Predators" ???

reply from: mom5

I would say,

"Pro-choice Judges for Child Predators"

reply from: whosays

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/05/05/a15a_protest_0505.html

Interesting story. Following up on the post before last, it seems that the locals down in FL smell a rat!

Or I guess I should say they smell a predator, that is.

reply from: whosays

Regarding the "willing" 13-year-old girl aborted by a Florida judge:

A reasonable person would conclude that a 13-year-old child is unable to make decisions of death about her unborn baby, the operative word here being "reasonable." Yet the ACLU and Planned Parenthood convinced a Florida judge that should be the case. So a 13-year-old child that in the state of Florida cannot legally drink, obtain health insurance, get her own credit cards, sign legal documents, get her ears pierced, sign up for Columbia House CDs, get a job, open a bank account, go on school trips, go to PG-13 movies, enjoy certain amusement rides, decide on cosmetic surgery – all without parental or guardian involvement, to mention but a few things – is mature enough to decide to compound illicit behavior with murder. What does this say about their true opinion of this child? Why were they more concerned about aborting the child's child than prosecuting the person who impregnated her at 13 years of age?

Can't even sign up for Columbia House CD's!

This is from "A Tale of Two Mothers", which you can find posted on this site's http://prolifeamerica.com/Abortion_Articles.cfm along with several other articles about the abortion of this 13-year-old who was impregnated by a 28-30-year-old man - a man who is likely to be commiting the same crime with another "willing" victim since this predator has not been arrested and as it is clear that pro-choicers in the courts and in law enforcement are intentionally ignoring and/or 'downplaying' the connection between abortion and child rape at all costs.

Even at the cost of young children, like this 13-year-old. But hey, at least pro-choicers are consistant.

They're pro-choice and this "woman has the right to choose!" She can choose to abort her baby or to have sex with whoever she "wants" - even a 30-year-old - because "it's her body" and "she can do with it what ever she wants to", right? I think I hear pro-choice applause!

reply from: yoda

I don't understand your argument. You agree that it's illegal for a child to have sex with anyone, and yet you claim that doesn't constitute rape if both are underage and willing.

Don't you understand the legal definition of statutory rape? Here it is:

Quick definitions (statutory rape) # noun: sexual intercourse with a girl who has not reached the age of consent (even if both parties participate willingly)

reply from: Diadema

I don't understand your argument. You agree that it's illegal for a child to have sex with anyone, and yet you claim that doesn't constitute rape if both are underage and willing.

Don't you understand the legal definition of statutory rape? Here it is:

Quick definitions (statutory rape) # noun: sexual intercourse with a girl who has not reached the age of consent (even if both parties participate willingly)I might be mistaken, in fact, I probably am...but I thought statutory rape was with an adult man (over 18) and a minor girl.

reply from: yoda

Yes, you probably are. If you will be so kind as to read the definiton you just reposted, you will see that there is NO MENTION of the age of the male involved.

Does that answer your question?

p.s. If you are now going to respond that males under the age of consent aren't usually prosecuted, don't bother. My state, as most states, does not prosecute such offenders even though they have technically committed statutory rape because the laws contain an exception for them, but not for adults.

reply from: whosays

Pro-choice logic says:

It is a woman's right to abort (i.e. 'unmake) a baby.

[and that includes even a 10-year-old "woman" or a 13-year-old "woman".]

If true, then wouldn't a "woman's right to sex" (ie to 'make' that same baby) follow?

[and that also includes 10-year-old "women" and 13-year-old women!]

The "right to choose" (abortion) necessarily requires the prerequisite "right to choose" sex.

Therefore it would appear that pro-choice logic would necessarily dictate that all pro-choicers support the right of children to choose to have sex (although they like to call these children "women" so long as they choose to abort any child that results from their right to choose sex)!

EVERY child predator is pro-choice - what does that tell you?

reply from: yoda

Or perhaps they would say "disassemble" a baby, which certainly fits the discription of what an aborted baby looks like. They like to compare babies to cakes in the oven, cars being manufactured, and various other non-living things that are "assembled".

That they consider unborn human beings as "evidence" to be destroyed, just as other proaborts consider them to be "problems" to be "solved".

reply from: Dmourning

That is the most assinine statement I've ever seen.

http://www.refuseandresist.org/ab/031101morency.html
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000856102
http://archive.showmenews.com/2002/Mar/20020303News011.asp

I guess you anti-choicers like to indulge in young children as well!

reply from: Tam

That is the most assinine statement I've ever seen.

http://www.refuseandresist.org/ab/031101morency.html
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000856102
http://archive.showmenews.com/2002/Mar/20020303News011.asp

I guess you anti-choicers like to indulge in young children as well!

1) A murderer is never pro-life even if he is anti-abortion. If someone is so morally defunct as to support murder, it is no surprise that child pornography isn't beyond the pale for him, either.

2) That's great that that guy Haldreth was able to turn his life around like that!! He was a pro-abortion sex offender and now he's an anti-abortion supporter of life. He had a religious conversion in jail, apparently. This does happen--and is one BIG reason to oppose the death penalty! Even if he were still in jail, he'd be doing everything he could (presumably, I mean, I don't know the guy, just read D's linked article) to support life. So I want to use this as an opportunity to voice again my opposition to the death penalty.

3) Some random Republican is in jail for child sex offenses and this is supposed to make people on this forum feel guilty how exactly? If there's a Democrat in jail for child sex offenses (and who wants to bet there is?), does that make you feel guilty? Hey, at least I can say that I have NEVER voted for a Republican or a Democrat and I never intend to! Those two parties are corrupt and owned and will not gain my support, so why I should feel any connection with the actions of those who represent those parties is beyond me. Should I feel guilty when a Klansman commits a lynching? (It's a hypothetical--I hope that never happens today.) I'm not a supporter of the Klan so what has it to do with me? Same goes for the GOP. Should I feel guilty if I have the same favorite color as a mass murderer?

I bet you have something in common with all three of these people. It's called a penis. Does that make it your fault if they misuse theirs? I oppose murder and child pornography and child abuse. I also oppose child murder, including abortion. I think you know how inappropriate and irrelevant your post is, so why should I bother continuing to explain? I know you're smart enough to understand what you've done here, so I must assume it was intentional. It's a low I was hoping you'd not sink to, D.

reply from: Dmourning

Tam I was using these examples for no reason other than to refute the very ignorant and flagrantly false generalization the previous poster made that read:

"EVERY child predator is pro-choice - what does that tell you?"

I really don't care about their specific circumstances or how you try to rationalize them. The fact is that not EVERY child predator is pro-choice, contrary to the above statement.

Religion didn't rescue blacks from slavery, religion doesn't rescue prisoners from life sentences or deathrow and religion most certainly doesn't rescue an individual from being a sex offender.

reply from: Tam

Ok, I see what you mean. I didn't remember the earlier statement (and even now I don't remember who made it), but I should have jumped on that statement the way I jumped on you. Sorry to have failed to be fair. Funny, and I've been accused of favoring you.

reply from: whosays

For better comprehension by rationalizing pro-choicers who don't know what the meaning of "is" is, let me restate what was said above:

EVERY child predator IS pro-choice.

Of course one who would wish to ignore this fact might try to pretend that this isn't the case by saying something like the following:

Fool, look it up. "Is" is present tense. "EVERY child predator is pro-choice" says nothing about the future condition of a person - it doesn't say that they must continue to abuse children and it does not say that they must continue to be pro-choice. D, the phony arguments you advance are so transparent. What's next? Are you going to claim that this is saying that 'all pro-choicers are child predators'? Come on, get real. The cause of truth is not served by one setting up a non-existant straw-man arguement, attributing it to the opposition and then knocking down that straw-man.

The statement stands and it the truth of it is self-evident by the actions that a child predator engages in.

Heck, NAMBLA is the arguably the most rabidly pro-choice group in the country. Pro-choice for 8-year-old boys, let them CHOOSE to have sex with adult men. Hey, there's that pro-choice theme song again - it's their body; a person should have the right to choose to do whatever they want to do with their own body.

reply from: whosays

What's the matter Dmourning, facts - opps I meant cat - got your tounge?

reply from: Tam

Ok, wait a minute. Now I am really confused. First of all, there is this quote above that seems to be attributed to Dmourning, but wasn't it I who said it? I was pointing out that (in support of whosays's argument) the guy Dmourning was pointing to as a pro-life sex offender was NOT, in fact, a pro-life sex offender, because he was pro-choice at the time of the offense. It may seem nit-picky, but it's an important detail, I feel. I think if Dmourning wants to come up with some example of someone who commits a sex crime while simultaneously advocating for life for the unborn, I think he needs to try harder. But I disagree if whosays is saying it's absolutely impossible to come up with such an example. I mean, there must be a priest somewhere who fits that bill--pro-life activist and child molester at the same time? I know, it sounds awful, but do you really think there is no such person on the face of the earth? Or maybe I am misinterpreting--maybe whosays is using "choice" to mean the sort of "choice" that a NAMBLA member might advocate for--the "choice" of a child to have sex. In that respect, of course, you might be right, whosays. But I suppose there might be someone who feels that children cannot consent to rape, who knows that sex with children is rape, and who does it anyway, knowingly, deliberately. Not thinking that the child is choosing anything, but knowing that it's forced and not caring. Well, anyway, look, I'm just really confused at this point--whosays and/or Dmourning, help me out, ok?

reply from: whosays

As you noted, "the guy Dmourning was pointing to as a pro-life sex offender was NOT, in fact, a pro-life sex offender, because he was pro-choice at the time of the offense." Yet, despite this fact, Dmourning somehow sought to use this quote as grounds for pretending that a sex offender who later becomes a pro-lifer was somehow a way of refuting the statement "EVERY child predator is pro-choice."

However, you picked up on the "important detail" that pro-choice Dmourning made the choice to ignore and that is that the case he cited in no way refuted this statement. Thus Dmourning was simply wrong and, as I said above, the statement stands.

reply from: whosays

And yet another http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000929084 case.

Abortion, the choice of child rapist's all across America! (after the choice to have sex with children that is)

reply from: whosays

"To investigators, Barney said the sex was consensual. "

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44725 and then ask yourself if this creap had gotten one of his underage victims pregnant, would Planned Parenthood have taken his money and preformed a 'confidential' abortion without 'asking any questions' and thus helped him to conceal his crime?

Of course they would, just as 90% of the abortion clinics in America would - as proven by their own statements caught-on-tape!

Planned Parenthood is pro-choice on child sex, and of course that mentality extends to their being pro-choice when it comes to the woman's choice (they prefer to call even their 12-year-old customers women) as to who she has sex with - no matter if this 'woman' chooses to have sex with an adult or a 'partner' her own age.

"the sex was consensual" - interesting, that's the same excuse that pro-choice abortion clinic workers use to rationalize disobeying the mandatory reporting laws!

reply from: CAS

The dictionary definition of statutory rape and the legal definition are not the same. The age of consent (14 to 18) and the particulars, vary from state to state. Some states include boys as victims, while others specify only girls can be victims. Some states do include a claus that specifies the age difference, meaning that two 14-years-olds engaging in sex would not be an illegal act, but if one of the participants was 18 or 19 and the other 14, then it is an illegal act. That age difference also varies. In some states it is actually illegal for two 14-year-olds to engage in sex and one or both partners could be charged, but quite often the law defines statutory rape as an unwilling act where force or coercion is used, or if the victim in incapacitated (unconscious, drugged, mentally ill, etc.). In states where the law specifies the willingness of the partners it is very difficult to get a conviction (or even bring charges) if the younger party says she or he agreed to the act or refuses to testify...in other words, the act must meet the legal definition of statutory rape and not the social definition.

CAS

reply from: theflyingpen

May I ask if you agree with the way this situation is handled, CAS?

reply from: teddybearhamster

i'm not even sure yet what i believe but that statement is one of the most inane things i've ever read.

reply from: galen

have you noticed how unoriginal this guy is?

reply from: teddybearhamster

i've noticed how nutty he/she is.

reply from: galen

yeah but not the nutty professor is he?

reply from: teddybearhamster

LOL! certainly not. that guy was smart.

reply from: sander

Nope.
I think he's mr. crazy pants.

reply from: yoda

Nope.
I think he's mr. crazy pants.
Crazy like a fox...... he/she is bumping three year old posts to try to remove threads s/he doesn't like from the front page..... watch any you're interested in, and bump them back to page one.

reply from: sander

Nope.
I think he's mr. crazy pants.
Crazy like a fox...... he/she is bumping three year old posts to try to remove threads s/he doesn't like from the front page..... watch any you're interested in, and bump them back to page one.
I did that this morning before I left for work...but, mr. crazy pants snuck back in. I'm going to have to re-name him...poopyhead works.

reply from: galen

Nope.
I think he's mr. crazy pants.
Crazy like a fox...... he/she is bumping three year old posts to try to remove threads s/he doesn't like from the front page..... watch any you're interested in, and bump them back to page one.

reply from: Notquiteunderstandin

ok when I saw the title, I thought men was bringing girls to planned parenthood offices and molesting them. WOW! This message was really misleading. Giving advise on the phone to a scared young lady, that probably did not have guidance prior to her becoming pregnant but need guidance now are calling about information. How are they protecting the men again? I didn't get that part of the message? I would love to be enlightened. I didn't hear any men call? All I hear was young girls. I am very confused. Can someone please enlighten me?

reply from: ProInformed

Originally posted by: whosays
<FONT size=2>What do you call a 40-year-old man who has sex with a 13-year-old girl?
Answer: A Planned Parenthood customer.
or he could also be called an abortion industry employee:
What New York abortionist admitted to exposing himself to more than 700
women and young girls, finally kidnapped and raped a six-year-old girl and
spent seven years in prison for the crime, and was then welcomed back to
his abortion practice with open arms by the State of New York?

reply from: ProInformed

Which prominent Chicago abortionist made "kiddie porn" featuring his
own 3-year-old daughter, and, when caught, blamed his prosecution on
local pro-lifers?

reply from: ProInformed

What Arizona abortionist said "This is my abortion machine, where I do
the Lord's work. I heal the sick with it," and was later convicted of more
than 60 counts of sexual abuse and sexual assault and imprisoned for
35 years?

reply from: ProInformed

I totally agree!
Unfortunately choicist cultists worship 'free sex' and 'abortion rights' as their idols so they don't really care that the abortion industry is helping to hide the sexual exploitation of children.
And their devotion to the worship of sex prevents them from comprehending the fact that children cannot legally give consent to having sex with ANYONE.
They don't care so they don't bother to learn;
they don't know because they don't really care.
Besides: they not only help sexual predators hide and continue their crimes,
they WELCOME them as employees in their industry:
What New York abortionist admitted to exposing himself to more than 700
women and young girls, finally kidnapped and raped a six-year-old girl and
spent seven years in prison for the crime, and was then welcomed back to
his abortion practice with open arms by the State of New York?

reply from: Yuuki

Sex IS free. If you're paying for sex, you're sleeping with a prostitute.

reply from: scopia19822

A man will tell you that sex for them is never really "free" whether you buy the woman dinner, an engagement ring or are married they pay for it some how.

reply from: 4choice4all

Ew...a sexist man would say that. Certainly a quality man doesn't really believe that a quality woman rewards his monetary gifts with sex.

reply from: scopia19822

If you consider Jay Leno a sexist. It does not mean that money changes hands.

reply from: 4choice4all

If he said it, I consider it a sexist remark. But I'm sure it was meant as a joke...considering the source.

reply from: scopia19822

It was meant to be a joke by both me and Leno. Think about it the man traditionally has to pay for the dates, the engagement ring and gifts etc for his wife or girlfriend.

reply from: ProInformed

There is no such thing. Under our present law no person can't "consent" to be someone else's slave, and no minor can "consent" to sex - no more than they can "consent" to being beaten. You can call it anything you like, but the law calls it rape (that is non-consensual sex) because CHILDREN CANNOT LEGALLY "CONSENT" TO SEX AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHILDREN HAVING CONSENSUAL SEX.
TRUE - BUT the choicist cultists don't exactly think it's wrong or harmful for childen to be having sex, APPARENTLY, since they DEFEND the abortion industry illegally refusing to report it when underage girls come in for abortions.

reply from: ProInformed

bumping for the newcomers

reply from: jackdiesel

Syphilis is a sexually transmitted bacterial infection caused by the bacterium Treponema Pallidum. Syphilis is passed from person to person through direct contact with syphilis sore. Transmission of the bacterium occurs during vaginal, anal, or oral sex. There are 3 stages of syphilis, all of which are characterized by certain symptoms. Although transmission occurs from persons with sores who are in the primary or secondary stage, many of these sores are unrecognized. Thus, transmission may occur from persons who are unaware of their infection.
For more details: [URL=http://www.onlineuha.com/hiv-stds-risk-panel/syphilis-rpr-3.htm]Syphilis Test[/URL]

reply from: AaronAgassi

What do you call a 40-year-old who has sex with a 13-year-old? -you ask, whosays...
Answer: A statutory rapist, those statutes being controversial, and the real general Empirical question, sans self indulgence of indignation, being: under what real circumstances either police work or social work is actually more helpful and less destructive, and by what ethics these different roles need to be played in society.

reply from: nancyu

THE most viewed thread at prolifeamerica.com

reply from: AquaGirl

oh, this is so true! go to life dynamics' website childpredators.com and read/listen to more evidence of this. the sad part is that nobody who can fix the problem seems to care enough to do anything about it (i.e. politicians, the police, child protective services, etc.).
and it will continue as long as abortion clinics AND crisis pregnancy centers are allowed to get away with not reporting it. and as long as the courts and liberal judges look the other way.
the response to the child predator project in some states has been to actually lower the age of consent for having sex!!

reply from: BossMomma

A very common one, there are hospitals that house hundreds of women and girls who have endured on going rape by RUF militias and, by Government troops. There is also the tradition of mutilating the genitals of young girls to keep them celebate which is not a taboo, it is a widely accepted religious custom.

reply from: BossMomma

On the contrary, I work in a prison with a high population of sex offenders almost 95%, many of which have molested or outright raped children as young as 15 months. Rape knows no age, no gender, no social class, it is one of the oldest human rights violations in human history.

reply from: BossMomma

 
So if a twelve year old girl has consensual sex with an eleven year old boy, he raped her because he's the male child?  She's older.  Why isn't she the rapist?  Two minors having sex isn't necessarily rape.  It's rape when an adult sleeps with a child because the adult is older, bigger, smarter, a person of authority, and has taken advantage of the situation.
Actually there in Tx. as long as there is only a 2 year age difference it's not automatically statutory rape. I was seventeen when I met my 18 year old boyfriend who two years later became my husband, the law had nothing to say about it.

reply from: nancyu

http:// https://m.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10152062718015002&ref=bookmark&__user=1105137407

reply from: nancyu

If we want abortion to end with argument alone, we must stop arguing from the standpoint of why abortion SHOULD BE illegal, and start arguing that abortion IS illegal ALREADY.  And educating others as to how and why this is so.  
Did you know that abortion is illegal right now?  If you didn't, let me be the first to tell you!  It's exciting news for a pro lifer, wouldn't you say?!  
Arguments for why abortion should or should not be legal are endless and are based on personal opinion and feelings.  The pro life argument is usually that babies are a heavenly blessing to be cherished and loved instead of killed (sounds right to me).  The pro choice side tends to be more considerate of a woman who may be in difficult circumstances (mmmm..ya, sure.)
There are plenty of good arguments which favor one side or the other (some really bad ones, too)  but they can go around and around and around.  Have you noticed this, too?  And even when we "win", they keep getting away with murder.
The Law is what matters.  Personal opinions and feelings are not compatible with The Law, because The Law is not a respecter of persons.
The Law does not care that babies are cute and cuddly and fun; nor does it care that a woman may be very depended upon by her family and others - or she might have plans.
 It doesn't care that she might "feel" that she has a very good reason to want to kill a person who is, or is soon going to be, very dependent upon her.
"No respecter of persons" means that The Law doesn't take into account that one person might have more money, have more responsibilities than another, or be more productive, attractive, or needed than another.
The Law does not care who you are.  It doesn't care what nationality you are, what color or  gender you are, what religion you are.  
It does not care how much money you have or what circumstances surrounded your conception.  It doesn't care what age you are, what your level of dependency is upon others.
It does not care how many friends you have, how educated you are, or how high up the corporate ladder you have climbed.  It does not care what kind of car you drive, or how physically "fit" you may be.  It doesn't care if everyone loves you, or if no one can tolerate your presence.  It doesn't even care if you smell really bad.
It doesn't consider if you are healthy or sickly, pretty or not so pretty, if you are nice or more of a grouch.  
You don't have to be a citizen of the USA, or of any other nation.
The Law doesn't even care what percentage of the world's population you are.  Whether you are 50% of the population like Adam or Eve; or darn near 0% like you and I.
All that's required in order for you to be entitled to equal protection of the laws is that you be a person.
Are you with me so far?  
Do you know that Section one of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, states specifically and clearly, that NO person shall be deprived of life without due process of law,  and NO person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws?  If you haven't yet, I suggest you read it right away.  Here's an official copy:  
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

I happen to think this is a good thing, overall.  Even though there are moments,  every now and then, when I think I have a really good reason to hurt someone.  My logical side says no, it's not legal to harm an innocent person, and probably not worth the consequences, anyhow.  Plus,  I'm glad this protection is there for me, too.  Would you believe, that not everybody likes me?!  I can hardly believe it myself.
How did Roe vs Wade get to be considered "the law of the land" when it goes directly against our own Constitution? Our Constitution which is, in fact, the supreme law of the land.  Did you miss this part, SCOTUS?  Read it and weep:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Well, it all started when Griswold vs Connecticut recognized a constitutional "right to privacy":
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

But guess what; there is no such right in the Constitution.  Go ahead, read it again if you don't believe me:  
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html 

And do you know WHY there was no such right written into the Constitution?  Because granting a "right to privacy" would have made it possible to kill innocent persons, with no consequences.  
Are there any lights coming on in your head yet?  We certainly have an expectation of privacy in ordinary circumstances, but no such right when it comes to killing someone.  That's when you would have to explain yourself, and you'd better make it good.  Juries aren't always as nice as you would hope.  (^He^ might not be either.)
Then, the Roe vs Wade decision was based on the assumption that a fetus is not a person "in the whole sense"-with a disclaimer:  "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment". 
Shouldn't it be the other way around?  Shouldn't they have had to establish that the fetus was NOT a person, before granting someone the "right" to kill one?
And tell me now, how can two parents who are persons produce offspring that is not a person?  I don't believe it has ever happened.  If you've heard of such a case,  please send me a link.  Unlike the pro "choicers", I'm always open to correction.
It seems obvious that Roe vs Wade may have made some abortions legal, but only those which do not harm any persons.  
If you're speaking of a human Z/E/F then you're speaking of a person.  If you want to "abort" a chicken or an apple, you're perfectly within legal limits. But if you're a person, and you're pregnant, you're pregnant with a person.  Not a chicken and certainly not an apple.  I've heard that some people do strange things with animals and even fruit, and I'm no scientist, but I'm nearly certain it won't produce any offspring.
So, since (human) abortion takes the life of an innocent person, abortion is not, never has been and never will be "legal" in any meaningful sense of the word.  (I don't think it's legal in any non-meaningful sense either)
Aside from our Creator, there is no person or entity with the authority to make the murder of an innocent person legal.  
Some might ask, why does this matter if the law in this case probably can't, or won't be enforced?
Try to think of some laws that you obey, even though you are not forced to obey them.  I'll bet you can think of a few.  How about, don't touch a hot stove, or don't run in front of a big truck. The Law isn't always an enforcer, it is a teacher.  It doesn't take much to see that obeying just laws is in everyone's best interest.  If we want our own rights respected, we have to also respect the rights of others.  
Then, maybe someday soon, when enough people begin to see the value of The Law, tides will turn, and pressure will grow, until law enforcement has no choice but to start doing its job.
My friend,  Dave Leach (see comments) thinks Roe vs Wade has been overturned since 2004 with the enactment of Laci and Conners law.  This is when he believes that the "personhood" of the fetus was "established" within the law.  This is what the Roe v Wade decision stated would create it's own collapse.
< ^ Roe v. Wade's "collapse" clause says: "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."<
I respectfully (and only slightly) disagree with Dave for a few reasons:
1). Roe V Wade was already "collapsed" the very first time a child in the womb was a person.  "Human being" and "person" are synonymous.  Since all human beings are, and always have been persons; those in the womb are, and always have been persons.
 
2).  The Unborn Victims of Violence act did NOT declare the unborn child a PERSON.  It declared the unborn child a "victim". (Victims are not always persons.). My understanding of Dave's argument is (correct me if I'm wrong, Dave - I'm still learning) that since Roe equated the words "human" and "person" that this omission doesn't change the fact that it overturns Roe Vs Wade.  But it seems like people need to be hit over the head a little harder with the truth before they will really be able to feel it.
(Do you really think GW was just a great guy who missed a small detail like this?  He knew!  He knew, that as long as it didn't refer to the unborn child specifically as PERSON, he could work it.  He would win all the (stupid) pro life votes without even the mildest threat to a woman's "right to choose", because most people really are (sad to say) that stupid.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Here is the complete text of the law.  You don't have to read all of it, but look for the word "person".  It's in there....
< "The operative portion of the law, now codified as Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code, reads as follows:
Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that -
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)). (3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution -
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." <
...But ONLY when referring to the perpetrator, the pregnant woman or her representative, or to her abortionist or medical care provider.  (We should have protested this law into the ground.  There is no WAY an abortionist is a person.)
The unborn child is carefully referred to as "child" or as "human being", not even once as "person".
Now, I always thought that the words "child" and "person"; and "human being" and "person" were synonymous, but apparently our "leaders" think differently.  This implies that the makers and signers of this law believed that SOME children and SOME human beings are NOT persons.  
I don't want to frighten you or anything, but this is really frightening!
Try to imagine yourself as a human non-person.  Is it so far-fetched?   Ask the slaves.   Ask the Jews, the homosexuals, and the "unfit" in Hitler's time, if they had ever imagined themselves in such a category.  
Maybe you don't value your own "personhood" to care about anyone else's; but I do.  I'm not a mere "human being".  I am a person.  It's not legal to kill me without just cause and/or due process of law.  I have been a person since the very beginning of my existence in my mother's womb, (remembering that there are some persons who begin their existence outside their mothers womb)  and I will be until I am completely and utterly dead.   (You do NOT have my permission to kill me under any circumstances.  So there.)
3).  A legal dictionary will tell you that a natural person is also a  "legal" person.  This means that "personhood" of a natural person does not need to be established.  "Roe" never existed except in all our wild imaginations, because The Constitution (the supreme law of the land) and The Truth (a person in the womb is a person) made it void.
Dave, don't give the justices who decided Roe, more respect than they deserve.  They should not have used pro life legislation as a basis for their opinion, and they should have struck down any anti-abortion legislation that disregarded the fact that the zygote, embryo, fetus was a person.  (What did they think it was, a tomato?  If that was the the case she wouldn't want an abortion.  She could just make a salad).  The truth is, outlawing abortion just wasn't what the SC wanted to do.  They wanted women to kill their children, and think like it was their own choice.  It's so scary, how well they succeeded.
I am concerned for countries and places which think themselves more "pro life" because they have strict abortion bans or restrictions.  These are what led us to Roe vs Wade in the first place.  Abortion bans don't treat the pre-born as persons entitled to equal justice and protection.  
Keep it simple:  Just enforce laws against murder for everyone - inside the womb or out.
That way,  no doctor need fear prosecution for treating a pregnant woman to save her life, but those who intentionally kill for fun or for profit, will be securely behind bars.
The clump of tissue which is Roe vs Wade may have made abortion possible and even convenient; it (with a little help from their friends on the tv news) made the killing of innocent people seem normal and "socially acceptable".   But what it absolutely did not do was to make abortion legal.
I always wonder, what made us buy this lie that it is (sometimes) legal to kill (some) innocent people, and why is it so frustratingly difficult to convince (even some very smart and very pro life) people that we've been duped.
Is it a matter of pride, and not wanting to admit that we could have been misled?  Have we been brainwashed by soaps and talking heads on the tv? 
Have we gotten used to the option of killing with no consequences?  Hmmmm .. what else might we be able to get used to?
Is it because those in the womb are so much smaller than we are?  That the blood is quickly washed away, the little body whisked away to the research lab, so we don't have to look at it, or think about it too long?
Are we believing what we want to believe?  
This possibility gives me the most trouble.  Why do there seem to be so very many, who apparently have so little love for children, that they not only expect, but demand the right to have them professionally slain for any old reason?  I don't know, I'll keep asking around.  If you figure it out I hope you'll tell me.
We've made it past one hurdle and it was a tall one.   We've made abortion illegal (WaaHooo!!!) with nothing more or less than the simple truth.
What is left, but to make it much less convenient (impossible -even better)  less socially acceptable, less gruesomely "normal".
Maybe that will take more than argument alone.  We are waiting and praying and hoping for someone (some One?) a little higher up to help us with this part, but maybe what we don't realize is that it is our own attitudes that are helping to support and uphold these highly illegal "laws", when what we should work harder to uphold is The Law... and The Truth.
 Wouldn't it be nice if the "pro life" movement would stop being so stuck-up about supporting the use of force to defend these children.   There is such a thing as legitimate defense of innocent persons and there are times when it's called for.  With 50 million or so and counting, this might be the time.  Their side has been using very violent force against our side for 40 years now.  This isn't "LIKE" murder; this is murder.  On a very massive scale.    
I think we'd be better people if we weren't so afraid of getting some not-so-innocent blood on our hands.  I'm sure I would feel better, regardless of what consequences might follow. And, it's always possible for "consequences" to be turned into opportunity.  As we defend ourselves, we are also defending The Law and our babies, too.
Either way, we need to get our arguments straight and consistent.  We need to tell people that abortion is not legal.    Not everyone knows it yet, and they won't know if you don't tell them.  
These are our little brothers and sisters.  They're still being butchered as the clock ticks.  They're persons, they're innocent, and we're failing them. 
"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him;"   
Acts 10: 34, 35
"And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him;"
Eph. 6: 9
 "But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons;" 
Col. 3: 25
"And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear" 
I Pet. 1: 17
(updated Aug 25, 2012)


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics