Planned Parenthood: Protecting the child abusers

[djheater]

The argument as I interpret it depends on an assumed moral position. I don't share kranky's assumption and it doesn't appear gopunk or red do either.

Kranky you can stand in that pulpit all freaking night, but most of the congregation is sleeping. Or possibly downloading child porn.

You know what they say about arguing on the internet....

 

[gopunk]

The argument as I interpret it depends on an assumed moral position. I don't share kranky's assumption and it doesn't appear gopunk or red do either.

mm.... well i certainly believe that such a large age difference is unhealthy... i guess i just view the pregnancy as a bigger deal than just the sex.

You know what they say about arguing on the internet....

heh, my friend took a copy off his website because it was getting so many complaints

 

[UltraQuiet]

On a sort of related link there's a judge right now in confirmation hearings who's getting sh!t hammered in part because of her rulings in favor of informing parents when their minor child seeks an abortion Judge. Personally I would want to be told but I can understand PP position on not telling for fear of scaring someone off so to speak. I would hope however that PP makes every effort to get parents involved when there is a minor involved.

 

[db]

Yet another political thread. B/c the original post is pure politics.

 

[Stark]

Stark trying to decipher what is dumb and what isn't here at ATOT is like a nurse trying to determine who crapped their pants in a diarrhea ward. It's all the same sh!t to him

Now THAT's some good insight! That's so dead on it may end up in my sig. LOL

 

[kranky]

Pulpit? Religion? Politics? Moral position? Sorry, I don't see any connection there. I re-read my OP and just don't see it. Why are people are reading more into the post than what is actually there?

Red, My problem with this is that an organization legally bound to report child abuse - can we agree this would be a child abuse situation? - has decided to turn a blind eye in these cases.

It doesn't seem right that a pedophile could knock up a 13-year-old kid and as long as he knows to go to Planned Parenthood or other places which may act the same way, they'll help him cover it up. Isn't that why they passed the law in the first place? So people doing things like this can't get away with it?

Medical personnel have to report all gunshot wounds, because a criminal act could be involved. What's the difference here?

 

[Lucky]

Medical personnel have to report all gunshot wounds, because a criminal act could be involved. What's the difference here?

If you've been shot, there is STRONG likelyhood a criminal was involved. Even if not an investigation would be in order.

If you've been knocked up the correlation isnt there like it is for a gunshot wound.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: DAM
So what? Honestly what in the world those this have to do with anything? Let me take a wild guess if your child was 14 and fvcking around with a 22 year old wouldn't you notice? Or are you so dense/blind/stupid to ignore a 22 year old man sniffing a 13 year old's panties?

You'd be surprised. I might have said the same thing up until about 2 weeks ago when I learned that something like this happened to a friend's daughter. A few of us even warned her that the guy was "obviously" a child molester, and now we all feel really badly b/c we were right, but she never ever believed us.

There's more to it than that, though. Slutty 13-yo daughter initiated it, by her own admission.
Take a trampy 13-yo who obviously seeks attention and validation of herself, can't seem to get it from either of her divorced parents who are too busy (IMHO) trying to make up for the fun times they lost when they had kids way too young. Looking for that attention by soliciting what she believes to be love from anyone she can tell is male.
Couple her with some slack-jawed moron 20-something who is too stupid to tell her it ain't gonna happen and why, and you've got a bomb going off right there.

Which leads me to the breakdown of Kranky's argument.
The statement that PP is "protecting child abusers" begins with the assumption that "statutory rape" is the same as "child abuse." There are obviously times when they are identical, where a predatory older person lies to and seduces a younger person into a relationship.
But then there are times when two people who are just plain not that bright who seem to think "She's 13, I'm 25, but she's propositioning, so hey! I'll hit it!"

PP's goal is, as someone said, about pregnancy issues, not child abuse. They are useless if no one can come to them seeking help without fear of sending their "beloved" to jail. This is really a conundrum that can't be won. If PP cannot "overlook" statutory rape in order to prevent a girl from dying from a botched coat-hanger abortion, or going to prison when she throws her newborn in a dumpster, then they become useless. The penalty is that they may sometimes have to overlook obvious cases of child abuse.

What are you going to do? Also, a girl doesn't have to tell PP the age of her "boyfriend," and I bet a lot of callers do not. The two call scripts presented kind of set the operator up to be in a position to tell the girl "You didn't say that." How do we know that the average call isn't just "I'm 12, I'm pregnant, I'm so scared, what do I do?!?!?!"

 

[gopunk]

Medical personnel have to report all gunshot wounds, because a criminal act could be involved. What's the difference here?

i can't believe you can't see the difference. the difference is that:

1.) it will probably not prevent a significant amount of people from seeking medical attention
and
2.) for the people that choose not to seek medical attention because of this, i guess all i can say is good riddence. no harm done to anybody but themselves, whereas a pregnancy affects our entire society.

 

[Stark]

Before you go and call someone else dumb for saying that I suggest you go and read some of the sh!t on their web site.

I looked at the only link in this thread and it looks like a pro-life website. Big deal. I looked at the TVC website and it says: "With an emphasis on the restoration of the values needed to maintain strong, unified families, Traditional Values Coalition focuses upon issues such as education, homosexual advocacy, family tax relief, pornography, the right to life and religious freedom." So what?

When did conservative (Christian) organizations who claim to be patriotic become terrorists?

Ann Coulter sums up this sort of thinking nicely in her new book:

"As there is less to dispute, liberals have become more bitter and angry. The Soviet threat has been vaporized, women are not prevented from doing even things they should be, and the gravest danger facing most black Americans today is being patronized to death. And yet, still somehow, Tom Delay (mild-mannered Republican Congressman from Texas) poses a monumental threat to democracy as we know it. ... For his evident belief in a Higher Being, Delay is compared to savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of the New York Times. ("History teaches that when religion is injected into politics -- the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo -- disaster follows.")

"There's a reason the left's rhetoric bears such a striking resemblance to some of the nuttier religions: Abhorring real religions, liberals refuse to condemn what societies have condemned for thousands of years -- e.g., promiscuity, divorce, illegitimacy, homosexuality. Consequently, the normal human instinct to condemn something bubbles up against a legion of quite modern vices, such as smoking, fur, red meat, excessive consumption, and land development."

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Stark

Before you go and call someone else dumb for saying that I suggest you go and read some of the sh!t on their web site.

I looked at the only link in this thread and it looks like a pro-life website. Big deal. I looked at the TVC website and it says: "With an emphasis on the restoration of the values needed to maintain strong, unified families, Traditional Values Coalition focuses upon issues such as education, homosexual advocacy, family tax relief, pornography, the right to life and religious freedom." So what?

When did conservative (Christian) organizations who claim to be patriotic become terrorists?

Ann Coulter sums up this sort of thinking nicely in her new book:

"As there is less to dispute, liberals have become more bitter and angry. The Soviet threat has been vaporized, women are not prevented from doing even things they should be, and the gravest danger facing most black Americans today is being patronized to death. And yet, still somehow, Tom Delay (mild-mannered Republican Congressman from Texas) poses a monumental threat to democracy as we know it. ... For his evident belief in a Higher Being, Delay is compared to savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of the New York Times. ("History teaches that when religion is injected into politics -- the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo -- disaster follows.")

"There's a reason the left's rhetoric bears such a striking resemblance to some of the nuttier religions: Abhorring real religions, liberals refuse to condemn what societies have condemned for thousands of years -- e.g., promiscuity, divorce, illegitimacy, homosexuality. Consequently, the normal human instinct to condemn something bubbles up against a legion of quite modern vices, such as smoking, fur, red meat, excessive consumption, and land development."

Well if you're going to quote Ann Coulter as your answer then I'm sure you don't have any problems with anything on their website. Carry on.

 

[gopunk]

When did conservative (Christian) organizations who claim to be patriotic become terrorists?

oy, there's a difference between what you speak of, and saying that convervative christian views EQUALS true patriotism.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Medical personnel have to report all gunshot wounds, because a criminal act could be involved. What's the difference here?

If you've been shot, there is STRONG likelyhood a criminal was involved. Even if not an investigation would be in order.

If you've been knocked up the correlation isnt there like it is for a gunshot wound.

If a 13 yr. old says that they were knocked up by a 21 yr. old then it is safe to assume a crime has been committed.

 

[GermyBoy]

This thread sickens me. I read the first post and felt it obligated to post without reading the rest, because there are going to be supportes of PP somewhere, and I don't want to hear it.

Anyone that says 22 yr. old impregnating a 13 yr. old should be found and turned into a Unik. Then kill them after they heal. It's only justice.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: GermyBoy
This thread sickens me. I read the first post and felt it obligated to post without reading the rest, because there are going to be supportes of PP somewhere, and I don't want to hear it.

Anyone that says 22 yr. old impregnating a 13 yr. old should be found and turned into a Unik. Then kill them after they heal. It's only justice.

How about we drop the artificial limit that somehow came in that the younger party is 13 and the older party is 21 (now 22 in your post!)?
It's not quite so cut-and-dried if you take some more realistic ages. What it's a 16-yo boy and a 20-yo girl? You may still consider it a crime, but now it's no longer so obviously an adult who appears to be a predator, as much as it is a pair of young adults who aren't being very intelligent.

I would hazard that 80% of PP's calls are NOT pregnant 13 year olds.

 

[Red Dawn]

there's a difference between what you speak of, and saying that convervative christian views EQUALS true patriotism.

And by saying that he implies that those of us that aren't Christian Activist mustn't be as patriotic as he which is total rubbish.

This thread sickens me. I read the first post and felt it obligated to post without reading the rest, because there are going to be supportes of PP somewhere, and I don't want to hear it.

With your head buried neck deep up your arse it's a wonder you can hear anything.

Anyone that says 22 yr. old impregnating a 13 yr. old should be found and turned into a Unik. Then kill them after they heal. It's only justice.

Hey the TVC are looking for a few good men just like you. Leave your brain at home, you won't be needing it as they will be telling you what to think.

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: Jzero
How about we drop the artificial limit that somehow came in that the younger party is 13 and the older party is 21 (now 22 in your post!)?
It's not quite so cut-and-dried if you take some more realistic ages. What it's a 16-yo boy and a 20-yo girl? You may still consider it a crime, but now it's no longer so obviously an adult who appears to be a predator, as much as it is a pair of young adults who aren't being very intelligent.

I would hazard that 80% of PP's calls are NOT pregnant 13 year olds.

Maybe the reason the caller said she was 13 and her bf was 22 was to find out what would happen when it's so cut-and-dried that it's not a "judgement call" situation. 16 and 20 is a much different situation, no question. Or to go the other direction, let's say the ages are 11 and 40, and I suspect PP would act no differently.

 

[Red Dawn]

Or to go the other direction, let's say the ages are 11 and 40, and I suspect PP would act no differently.

I would hope that they would act more responsibly than the Worlds Largest Christian Institution has regarding pedophilia in the last 20 or sop years.

 

[Jzero]

Maybe the reason the caller said she was 13 and her bf was 22 was to find out what would happen when it's so cut-and-dried that it's not a "judgement call" situation. 16 and 20 is a much different situation, no question. Or to go the other direction, let's say the ages are 11 and 40, and I suspect PP would act no differently.

I would hope that in the case of 11 and 40 years old, the person at the call center would have a little bit of common sense, but all we have to go on is conjecture and a very slanted base article that uses a very artificial example in a seemingly deliberate attempt to show the PP is intentionally harboring child molestors.
While I don't at all believe that PP is this rosy little group of fairies who is going around saving all the children, I also don't at all believe that they have a policy of intentionally letting child abuse cases go.

Without more to go on, there's no way anyone can argue this one way or the other.

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I would hope that they would act more responsibly than the Worlds Largest Christian Institution has regarding pedophilia in the last 20 or sop years.

Agree with that!

Originally posted by: Jzero
I would hope that in the case of 11 and 40 years old, the person at the call center would have a little bit of common sense, but all we have to go on is conjecture and a very slanted base article that uses a very artificial example in a seemingly deliberate attempt to show the PP is intentionally harboring child molestors.

The "11 and 40" is pure conjecture for sure. But if you believe the results of the phone calls would have been any different if the New York Times had done the research and reported the results, I'll go along with "deliberate attempt to show the PP is intentionally harboring child molesters." PP dug their own hole here.

You know, it's been nice to debate a topic without a nef-fest taking place in the middle of the thread. But I'm done for tonight.

 

[Jzero]

The "11 and 40" is pure conjecture for sure. But if you believe the results of the phone calls would have been any different if the New York Times had done the research and reported the results, I'll go along with "deliberate attempt to show the PP is intentionally harboring child molesters." PP dug their own hole here.

I don't dispute the content of the survey, nor do I dispute whoever reported it. I do dispute the slant the they are intentionally harboring child molesters. A statutory rapist is not the same as a child molestor, and LDI makes it pretty clear that while their survey may be on the up-and-up, their "interpretation" is well-skewed by the artificial cirumstances of it always being a 14 year old girl and a 22 year old boy, and their interpretation is completely invalidated by the fact that they already have a professed axe to grind against PP and any other family planning group.

However, were it reported by a supposedly impartial source, I would still criticize the interpretation that they are deliberately harboring child abusers.

My argument isn't necessarily that PP not reporting these situations, it's that the claim that they are protecting child abusers is trumped up pretty well. In a real-world situation, they probably don't know the guy's age most of the time, and probably don't ask. If law enforcement did this, it would probably be entrapment.

As I said before, they aren't a bunch of little angels, but accusing them of protecting child abusers when what they are really trying to do is protect children who have bit off more than they can chew (Liberals can play the "Will someone think of the children?" card, too ).
I agree that they dropped the ball, and maybe Feldt should be a little more open about admitting that something more should be done. OTOH, the "article" you posted (is the article quoted entirely, or did you paraphrase some or any of it?) quotes half a sentence of Feldt's, and I happen to agree and understand why she would take the defensive. I bet if they took a line that wasn't a blatant smear campaign, they might have gotten a more cooperative response from PP, but now we'll never know. This article is engineered to make PP look bad, which is why I regard it as crap.

The data is "true" but the interpretation is not absolute. I have stated my interpretation of what the survey reveals, and you obviously agree with the given interpretation, and in a way, we both agree with each other.

You know, it's been nice to debate a topic without a nef-fest taking place in the middle of the thread. But I'm done for tonight.

True that.
Good night.

 

[ThunderGirl]

gopunk, the problem with this is just as the thread title said - it protects child abusers. If a 13-year-old kid gets hit by a parent and taken to a hospital, a doctor must report it. Wouldn't that also cause "problems"?

big difference a doctor has the physical proof right there. On the phone they don't know if she is telling the truth or not. And they go over lots of things with you in the clinic. And they DO recommend calling the police to report things as rape and such. They go over adoption before they do anything on abortion and they ask you if you even want information on abortion.

 

[HiveMaster]

Pulpit? Religion? Politics? Moral position? Sorry, I don't see any connection there. I re-read my OP and just don't see it. Why are people are reading more into the post than what is actually there?

I am reading that a bunch of wackos decided to place phone calls, and judging by SOME of the responses to some of the calls, made a conclusion that is totally baseless. When you idiots can cite cases where PP routinely covers up REAL instances of abuse, I will listen.

Why don't the religious groups clean up their own mess first? I will bet you all the money in my bank account that there were far more child rapes associated with a church than any branch of PP last year.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

yamahaXS, when 80% of the clinics give the same answer, I think it's safe to conclude that's the PP policy. If it isn't, then headquarters obviously doesn't have much influence on what the clinics are doing. And to imagine they would lie on the phone about reporting it (and then do it when they come in) is outlandish. I'm sure you don't even believe that.

Fact is, without KNOWING what was said and how it was said, we can't tell anything.


I would expect that you would find similar results for most if not all organizations. Churches, schools, ymca's, and just about every other 'type' of organization would also promise the 'girl' anything to get her into see help. Once she is in, then you would see what the organization would really do.

Your post is now officially as self-serving as the article that you have yet to cite.

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS
Fact is, without KNOWING what was said and how it was said, we can't tell anything.

I would expect that you would find similar results for most if not all organizations. Churches, schools, ymca's, and just about every other 'type' of organization would also promise the 'girl' anything to get her into see help. Once she is in, then you would see what the organization would really do.

Your post is now officially as self-serving as the article that you have yet to cite.

Well, I quoted two conversations verbatim which was to illustrate what was said and how it was said. I agree that they should encourage any girl in that situation to come in for help - you can't blame a 13-year-old in that situation. But not reporting the abuser doesn't seem to offer any help to the girl. Helping the girl shouldn't automatically mean the abuser gets a free pass. Just like domestic violence cases where the police have the ability to press charges even if the victim doesn't want to.

Link to article is here.