Planned Parenthood Exposed - New Undercover Video

[Agnapostate]

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

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

 

[Cecilie1200]

The age of consent questions is really hard. I think that for some it should be older and for some younger but that really doesn't matter anyway except for things like voting or buying liquor... things that are actually somewhat regulatable.

You really can't control how old someone is when they have sex. I was kissing boys and doing other mildly sexual things when I was 11. A few years later I was having sex. And it wasn't like I was the only one. I think a lot of people confuse the issue by asking if kids should be doing it or not. It isn't a matter of should or shouldn't. Kids will, so what are you doing to do about it? Are you going to pretend abstinence is really viable and not have condoms be available without parental consent? How silly do you want to be about it?

I don't have any answers, I'm just giving a report from the front lines, take it for what it's worth.

There's a big difference between controlling children and preventing them from doing stupid shit, and providing serious disincentives for adults to treat those children as fair game.

 

[Agnapostate]

There's a big difference between controlling children and preventing them from doing stupid shit, and providing serious disincentives for adults to treat those children as fair game.

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

 

[AllieBaba]

Well said.

It doesn't matter. If a crime is being committed..and a crime is being committed if a 13-year old is having sex, it needs to be reported. If you think a crime is going to be committed, it needs to be reported.

I'm sick of school personnel and Planned Parenthood freaks who condone sex with children and refuse to report crimes.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well said.

Why, thank you. I'll try and provide more of the same in the future.

 

[AllieBaba]

And what's even worse is the fact that a 13 year old can waltz in, ask for an abortion, condons, a pelvic or to be fitted with an IUD, and everyone falls all over t hemselves to protect her "privacy".

But a girl comes in and says her Christian parents have given the ok for her to marry (in other words, given their consent) why the cops are called RIGHT NOW and everyone in the family comes under suspicion, gets arrested and every female in the family gets a gratis pelvic to see if they've actually been having sex or not.

 

[Agnapostate]

And what's even worse is the fact that a 13 year old can waltz in, ask for an abortion, condons, a pelvic or to be fitted with an IUD, and everyone falls all over t hemselves to protect her "privacy".

But a girl comes in and says her Christian parents have given the ok for her to marry (in other words, given their consent) why the cops are called RIGHT NOW and everyone in the family comes under suspicion, gets arrested and every female in the family gets a gratis pelvic to see if they've actually been having sex or not.

And what, dear counselor, would you say to those who might not object to the latter scenario?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Can you tell us why you think so?

Here's a scenario for you, and it's one that has actually happened on several occasions which have been documented.

Teenaged girl gets pregnant, and is too wigged out to tell her parents. She goes to a clinic and gets an abortion. Something goes wrong with the procedure, but it doesn't become apparent until after she's gone home. She's in her bedroom, doing teenaged things, and all of a sudden starts to hemorrhage. First her parents know that anything's wrong, they're running into the bathroom to be confronted by the sight of their daughter, totally hysterical and covered in blood and needing to be rushed to the hospital. Now here they are, trying to play catch-up on what the hell's going on while trying to get their daughter's life saved. And to top it all off, THEY get to bear the legal and financial burden for their daughter's care. Not the clinic. The parents.

I have a teenaged child right now, Amanda. I love my child. You don't. I am responsible for his well-being. You aren't. I can be sued, fined, and even jailed for things that he does, or that happen in connection with him. You can't. I will have to live the rest of my life with the consequences of the things that happen in his life. You won't. God put our family together to provide someone to protect him and look out for him until he's old enough and wise enough - hopefully - to do it for himself. That person is me, not you. The law gives me both the right and the obligation to provide that protection. Me, not you.

THAT is why I need to know what's going on with him. It's my job, my duty, my responsibility to try to do what's best for him, and I can't do that without being informed. If, for some reason, I am incapable of doing that, then there are procedures for protecting him from my incapability. NONE of those procedures involves YOU, a total stranger who has no ties to him or responsibilities for him, stepping in and imposing your judgement over mine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In this situation, if a child sought life-saving medical intervention, and the parents refused, the child could ask for access to a guardian ad litem from the court to ensure that the child's best interests were protected. Parents DO NOT have a right to deprive their child of LIFE SAVING medical care because of their religious beliefs. In fact, parents have been charged with abuse/neglect for doing so.

I believe, in fact, that if a child is brought into the ER without the parents present, the medical personnel are allowed to give life-saving care without permission, since there isn't necessarily time to find the parents and get consent. That would be the law.

But they're required to stop at anything not strictly needed for urgent life preservation.

 

[AllieBaba]

And what, dear counselor, would you say to those who might not object to the latter scenario?

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

 

[AllieBaba]

Here's a scenario for you, and it's one that has actually happened on several occasions which have been documented.

Teenaged girl gets pregnant, and is too wigged out to tell her parents. She goes to a clinic and gets an abortion. Something goes wrong with the procedure, but it doesn't become apparent until after she's gone home. She's in her bedroom, doing teenaged things, and all of a sudden starts to hemorrhage. First her parents know that anything's wrong, they're running into the bathroom to be confronted by the sight of their daughter, totally hysterical and covered in blood and needing to be rushed to the hospital. Now here they are, trying to play catch-up on what the hell's going on while trying to get their daughter's life saved. And to top it all off, THEY get to bear the legal and financial burden for their daughter's care. Not the clinic. The parents.

I have a teenaged child right now, Amanda. I love my child. You don't. I am responsible for his well-being. You aren't. I can be sued, fined, and even jailed for things that he does, or that happen in connection with him. You can't. I will have to live the rest of my life with the consequences of the things that happen in his life. You won't. God put our family together to provide someone to protect him and look out for him until he's old enough and wise enough - hopefully - to do it for himself. That person is me, not you. The law gives me both the right and the obligation to provide that protection. Me, not you.

THAT is why I need to know what's going on with him. It's my job, my duty, my responsibility to try to do what's best for him, and I can't do that without being informed. If, for some reason, I am incapable of doing that, then there are procedures for protecting him from my incapability. NONE of those procedures involves YOU, a total stranger who has no ties to him or responsibilities for him, stepping in and imposing your judgement over mine.

The only time the lefties think kids should be responsible for themselves is when it comes to underaged sex.

They think it's okay and condone it. They do nothing to prevent it, and call us zealots when we do.

Typical.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've been a teenager. I'm going to assume that you haven't been a parent. Is it possible that at 42, I've had experiences that you have not yet had?

I know that everyone over age 22 is functionally retarded from the perspective of many teens, but there is a world of experiences that you have not yet had at 18, and yes, the perspective is vastly different from that of the parent of a teenaged girl than that of the teenaged girl.

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that people in their late adolescence/early twenties know EVERYTHING, and the rest of us are just old fogies who don't remember what it was like to be young and brilliant and clued in to the REAL reality.

Seriously, anyone who stated with a straight face, as Amanda did, that she was sure most 14-year-olds could handle being on their own and supporting themselves like adults has just proven, in my opinion, that they're way too close to that age themselves to know their ass from their elbow.

I actually have a child in that age range - he's 13 - and while he's quite intelligent and responsible for a 13-year-old, that ain't even in the same ballpark as being able to make serious life decisions for himself. There's a big difference between learning to be responsible as an adult and already being there.

 

[Agnapostate]

Here's a scenario for you, and it's one that has actually happened on several occasions which have been documented.

Teenaged girl gets pregnant, and is too wigged out to tell her parents. She goes to a clinic and gets an abortion. Something goes wrong with the procedure, but it doesn't become apparent until after she's gone home. She's in her bedroom, doing teenaged things, and all of a sudden starts to hemorrhage. First her parents know that anything's wrong, they're running into the bathroom to be confronted by the sight of their daughter, totally hysterical and covered in blood and needing to be rushed to the hospital. Now here they are, trying to play catch-up on what the hell's going on while trying to get their daughter's life saved. And to top it all off, THEY get to bear the legal and financial burden for their daughter's care. Not the clinic. The parents.

I have a teenaged child right now, Amanda. I love my child. You don't. I am responsible for his well-being. You aren't. I can be sued, fined, and even jailed for things that he does, or that happen in connection with him. You can't. I will have to live the rest of my life with the consequences of the things that happen in his life. You won't. God put our family together to provide someone to protect him and look out for him until he's old enough and wise enough - hopefully - to do it for himself. That person is me, not you. The law gives me both the right and the obligation to provide that protection. Me, not you.

THAT is why I need to know what's going on with him. It's my job, my duty, my responsibility to try to do what's best for him, and I can't do that without being informed. If, for some reason, I am incapable of doing that, then there are procedures for protecting him from my incapability. NONE of those procedures involves YOU, a total stranger who has no ties to him or responsibilities for him, stepping in and imposing your judgement over mine.

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

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

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

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

 

[Agnapostate]

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that people in their late adolescence/early twenties know EVERYTHING, and the rest of us are just old fogies who don't remember what it was like to be young and brilliant and clued in to the REAL reality.

Seriously, anyone who stated with a straight face, as Amanda did, that she was sure most 14-year-olds could handle being on their own and supporting themselves like adults has just proven, in my opinion, that they're way too close to that age themselves to know their ass from their elbow.

I actually have a child in that age range - he's 13 - and while he's quite intelligent and responsible for a 13-year-old, that ain't even in the same ballpark as being able to make serious life decisions for himself. There's a big difference between learning to be responsible as an adult and already being there.

I don't think that's what Amanda has suggested, and that you've actually twisted her words somewhat. I think that youth as a whole have been demonized by a mass media that is atrociously biased against them, but no one here suggested that youth are in any way exceptionally intelligent or never make mistakes.

Now, as I've mentioned previously, the chief proponent of youth liberation alive today is an 82 year old psychologist with numerous children and grandchildren. If you want to tell him that he can't tell his ass from his elbow, feel free, but when engaging in rational discourse, I think you might want to adopt a different tactic.

Now, unless you can present evidence that 14 year olds don't have the capacity to be independent and self-sufficient as the result of their age, I would wonder where these baseless claims were coming from, and why they so insufficiently dealt with the evidence that I provided.

Of course, there is a wider issue than biological maturity, that being the mental maturity of minors, which is often described as being separate from mere biological maturity and severely lacking and not equivalent to that of a legal adult. My contention is that, contrary to popular belief, the commonly accepted claim that adolescents are incapable of exercising rational judgment abilities is not an indisputably correct one. Supporters of this position frequently cite studies conducted with the use of magnetic resonance imaging or functional magnetic resonance imaging that illustrate that the teenage brain is “underdeveloped,” and that adolescents are thus often incapable of making rational or well informed decisions about significant issues. Yet, as Dr. Robert Epstein, former editor of Psychology Today, notes in an article published in Scientific American Mind, thought there is some semblance of a correlation between adolescence and brain development illustrated in these scans, there is no evidence of causation by a natural stage of adolescence. His chief counter-argument references the fact that adolescents have been severely infantilized in modern society, in contrast to the important adult role they played in past times, and it may be this factor that has led to the lack of brain development so commonly assumed to be a natural byproduct of adolescence. As such, it would not be intellectually honest to declare the infallibility of these scans just yet.

There are several studies that have been conducted on the basis of measuring the actual competency of adolescents to make informed decisions, as opposed to highly speculative guesswork based on snapshots of the brain.

An important one is that of Lois A. Weithorn and Susan B. Campbell, which tested four groups of people, aged 9, 14, 18, and 21. The study, entitled The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions, came to the conclusion that 14 year olds were capable of making medical decisions with a level of competence equivalent to that of legal adults. As partially summarized by Weithorn and Campbell:

"In general, minors aged 14 were found to demonstrate a level of competency equivalent to that of adults, according to four standards of competency (evidence of choice, reasonable outcome, rational reasons, and understanding), and for four hypothetical dilemmas (diabetes, epilepsy, depression and enuresis.)…The findings of this research do not lend support to policies which deny adolescents the right of self-determination in treatment situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity to provide informed consent. The ages of eighteen or twenty-one as the “cutoffs” below which individuals are presumed to be incompetent to make determinations about their own welfare do not reflect the psychological capacities of most adolescents."

The earlier study of researchers Grisso and Vierling, Minors’ Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective, came to a similar conclusion, the authors stating that “existing evidence provides no legal assumption that minors aged 15 years and above cannot provide competent consent.”

Researchers Bruce Ambuel and Julian Rappaport discovered similar results in a study intended to specifically focus on this topic, entitled Developmental trends in adolescents' psychological and legal competence to consent to abortion. The study confirmed the fact that the rational judgment and decision making capacities of adolescents, (particularly those at or beyond mid-adolescence), were often on par with those of adults.

In a wide-ranging review of the developmental literature on adolescents’ abilities to make rational decisions about medical treatment, researchers Kuther and Posada confirmed that, “the literature in developmental psychology has shown that adolescents are able to make meaningful decisions and advocates for youth have argued that researchers must respect the autonomy rights of children and adolescents,” thus confirming the legitimacy and validity of the previous studies to a great degree.

That seems to me more anecdotal evidence than anything else. Apart from the studies I posted illustrating the fact that 14 year olds possess the capacity to make rational informed decisions on par with those of adults, (that only one person has attempted to make a rational reply to), there is also evidence that formal operational thinking skills and intelligence peak at about age 14.

Now, take into account that the measurements of intelligence are over 60 years old. Since then, a phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect has occurred, in which the average IQ has risen by about 20 points. There are numerous explanations for this phenomenon, but it is notable that the rise spiked during the technology boom of the 1990's, suggesting that the increase may be related to technological advances in some way. Hence, the current adolescent generation are the beneficiaries of these technological advancements, and can be expected to have a higher average IQ than previous generations.

...

As I said previously, it may be helpful to conceptualize our current conception of "childhood" as a walled garden, in which some inhabitants of the garden may perceive it as tranquil and peaceful, and appreciate the walls that prevent external disturbances from entering. But so many others will perceive the walls as creating a dismal and dreary prison.

Ironically, the clearest indication that the effects of the Industrial Revolution exist to the present day is their coerced presence in your classroom.

...

And I still firmly believe the opposite, and believe that the studies and graphs that I posted have made a case that youth cannot be expected to lack the ability to make informed and rational decisions.

Infantilization...is an unfortunate process, and it remains my contention that continued infantilization and restrictions perpetuate the problems that they are intended to act as safeguards against.

Youth and even younger children have evolving capacities, as Gerison Landsown so eloquently puts it. The Evolving Capacities of the Child

 

[Agnapostate]

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

Then why even bring up the example to begin with, if you only intend to say something disparaging and inane?

The only time the lefties think kids should be responsible for themselves is when it comes to underaged sex.

They think it's okay and condone it. They do nothing to prevent it, and call us zealots when we do.

Typical.

Which "lefties" are you referring to? I know that can't include me, since I've proposed that youth ought to be responsible for themselves in a variety of other ways, in the same way that Newt Gingrich has.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I disagree. If a child falls pregnant, only she knows what is best. Only she has the right to make a decision, not her parents. Her parents do not own her body, nor do they control it. Would it be fair for her parents to pierce her ears against her will, for example? If her parents consent to it, then by your rationale, it would be acceptable. Should parents have the right to force their child to donate a kidney to their other child?

I imagine you would say no to both - so why should parents have the right to force their daughter to bear a child against her will? Abortion has risks, sure - but so does ear piercing, and the risks of kidney donation are tenfold compared to abortion.

Now, if the parents have the right to control their daughters body and force her to gestate, then by rights they can also force her to get her ears pierced and undergo surgery against her will.

Actually, lots of parents get their children's ears pierced without the child's permission. They perform that particular procedure in the hospital these days, right after the baby is born, along with the circumcision.

Legally, in most regards, parents DO control their children's bodies. They decide what the child eats, when and how to cut their hair, what medical procedures - other than abortions - are performed on the child, a whole host of things. They are not in any way required to consult the child regarding this if they don't wish to.

Welcome to reality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, I disagree. If a parent can force a child to have a baby against her will, then by rights they can force her to use her body in other ways.

Against her will? SHE'S the one who chose to spread her legs. Her parents didn't do it for her. Seems to me SHE forced the pregnancy on herself, not them.

 

[Agnapostate]

Actually, lots of parents get their children's ears pierced without the child's permission. They perform that particular procedure in the hospital these days, right after the baby is born, along with the circumcision.

Legally, in most regards, parents DO control their children's bodies. They decide what the child eats, when and how to cut their hair, what medical procedures - other than abortions - are performed on the child, a whole host of things. They are not in any way required to consult the child regarding this if they don't wish to.

Welcome to reality.

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

 

[Agnapostate]

Against her will? SHE'S the one who chose to spread her legs. Her parents didn't do it for her. Seems to me SHE forced the pregnancy on herself, not them.

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

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, parents are responsible for and do essentially own their children.

That's why we can be prosecuted for failing to provide proper care, for failing to supervise them adequately, and we can be held financially responsible for what our kids do.