Yes and you don't want to discourage children from getting an education, or parents from getting their children medical care.
Yet those groups are required to report. Even if they end up inconveniencing the innocent they have to report.
Is the 13 year old going to become unpregnant by some other means? She will still get the abortion. Afterwards she MAY, have to put up with her parents finding out about the abortion, or deal with her 22 year old boyfriend being questioned as to why he so enjoys 7th grade girls with braces.
The assumptions about who finds out and how it is dealt with are named by Planned Parenthood as an argument against reporting. If it is possible to give a girl an abortion without her parents knowing, then it is possible to interview her about potential abuse without her parents knowing.
Now suppose the worse case and they found out. The abortion is already performed. The parents can't do anything about that. They can't pressure her to have the baby, etc. Perhaps they will take more of an interest in who their child "dates" or how she was able to be pressured into having sex with a 22 year old to begin with. Maybe they will get her some counseling that helps her understand that a 22 year old boy doesn't have anything in common with her besides wanting to screw her.
It is amazing to me that you can think of no way reporting this would help these girls. Abortion doesn't "help" the problem. It allows the consequences of it to be delayed to another day. The fact that this girl thinks attention and sex with a 22 year old is love and caring won't change with that abortion. It won't make her realize that she doesn't have to give up sex to get love and be wanted. It won't make her realize that a man should treasure her brain as well.
Nick
Well maybe, but in general 13 years pregnant girl do not have great parents (there is exception as always). So you should not wait to many great things coming from their parents or her environnement.
In a perfect world, a 13 years girl should not date with A 22 years boy. But this happens, and people have to deal with the imperfection, and in practice sometimes the best solutions are not the one who respect more the morality. It's sad, but it's life (at least an aspect of it).
If I claim that you're blowing this situation out of all proportion because of your fundamentally anti-abortion/pro-life beliefs will you deny it again in this thread?
If you don't want people to have abortion just come out and say so. Don't try and weasel entirely unwarranted disclosure laws that will scare away potential clients of abortion clinics.
And can we take the hysterical "think of the children!" rhetoric down a notch or two? It's plain undignified.
then the counsellor should explain to her the details of the statutory rape laws in her state, why those laws exist, why she may not have the capacity to consent to sex, and then ask her if she would like to press charges. If she does not want to press charges, the center must honor her wishes and maintain confidentiality. There is no question about that. Privacy comes first.
anyone else see the inherent irony in asking someone whether they would like to press charges in this situation, after you acknowledge that they may not have the capacity to have consented in the first place?
at 13 you're too young. if it's statuatory rape, you should report. it's the law, and it's the law for a reason. predatory sex crimes are not where you decide to get stuck on privacy.
in our society children are accorded less privacy expressly because they aren't old/mature enough to make every decision for themselves.
If I claim that you're blowing this situation out of all proportion because of your fundamentally anti-abortion/pro-life beliefs will you deny it again in this thread?
If you don't want people to have abortion just come out and say so. Don't try and weasel entirely unwarranted disclosure laws that will scare away potential clients of abortion clinics.
And can we take the hysterical "think of the children!" rhetoric down a notch or two? It's plain undignified.
I believe the last thread in which we both discussed abortion was the My Body My Choice: For Men Too thread.
I don't believe I advocated against abortion in either thread.
I have been completely honest and unchanging in my view in this thread. 13 year olds cannot give consent. They have been molested or raped. Do not stop the abortion, but report the abuse.
You are welcome to quote any post in this thread where you think I have said something different from that.
Are there drawbacks to filing a report with DFS? Adolescents may be angered by the breach of confidentiality and may not return for health-care services. Parents may feel resentful of the intrusion and defensive about their parenting abilities and may not allow their child to return for care. In the first case above, the patient may not yet feel ready to discuss his homosexual lifestyle with his parents or with a caseworker. Forcing disclosure could result in anger, depression, ostracism, running away, or at worst, suicide.
Also important are the distinction made about sexual activity with a guardian:
Quote:
The above Missouri statute does not include language regarding ?statutory rape.? When DFS was contacted and asked about reporting cases of statutory rape, case workers reiterated that reports should be made only if the consensual sexual contact is a manifestation of abuse or neglect._ If the older partner has ?care, custody or control? of the minor partner, DFS caseworkers and our social work and sexual abuse management teams at SLCH agree the sexual activity should be reported to DFS. Similarly, if the child is participating in sexual activity because of neglect on the adult caretaker?s part, the situation should be reported to DFS. If the health-care provider is unsure whether a report is necessary, DFS encourages calls, as the DFS caseworker can help the health- care provider determine whether action is necessary. The DFS caseworker will decide whether the information will be filed as a ?referral? (may or may not act on information) or as a ?report? (information will be investigated, police may be notified).
See, the problem with trumptman's view is that it's the position of an ideologue, and we all know what those positions end up creating. He has a view that works within his ideal world model. But in the real world, physicians have to make decisions regarding specific incidents that aren't going to fit into trumptman's imaginary world.
Is it worth it to report it if the teen then commits suicide? Trumptman argues that it is, though that argument clearly shows that trumptman is motivated by his ideal, not by is concern for the safety of the patient.
Furthermore, it really is important to remember that in some states girls can be married at 13. You might not like it, but that's democracy for you. If you don't like democracy, move to Iraq. In other words, there are regions in the US, and across the globe, where people do not think it is too young. In fact, while looking this up, I noticed that until the turn of the century, age of consent was ~10 here in the US. In fact, many developed countries have age of consent at ~13.
there's a list of the age of consent. except for Hawaii, the age of consent is 16 and up unless they have consent of the parents.
along the lines of getting married at 13, how can you be married when having sex with your wife would be rape?
i'm still missing under what circumstances it's a good idea NOT to report statuatory rape with a 13 year old, irregardless of the possible outcomes.
lol, along the lines of giant's suggesntion, i put in "planned parenthood report statutory rape"
the first link was to how child predators use Planned Parenthood to hide their actions. Bravo!
more bits n' pieces
Quote:
The firm, Life Dynamics, Inc., based in Denton, Texas, said in an eight-page summary of its data that "among girls 15 and younger who become pregnant, between 60 percent and 80 percent of them are impregnated by adult men." Some girls are even as young as 10 years old, said the summary.
"In America today, we have reached the point where a junior high-school girl is more likely to become pregnant by an adult than by someone close to her own age," said the summary. "One study concluded that the average age of men who father children with girls under 14 is now higher than the average age of men who father children with 18-year-olds."
i'm still missing under what circumstances it's a good idea NOT to report statuatory rape with a 13 year old, irregardless of the possible outcomes.
Regardless.
If PP isn't mandated to report then there have been many good reasons discussed. The health of the girl, both mentally and physically, is paramount. 'Reporting' would be secondary to this concern.
Also important are the distinction made about sexual activity with a guardian:
See, the problem with trumptman's view is that it's the position of an ideologue, and we all know what those positions end up creating. He has a view that works within his ideal world model. But in the real world, physicians have to make decisions regarding specific incidents that aren't going to fit into trumptman's imaginary world.
Is it worth it to report it if the teen then commits suicide? Trumptman argues that it is, though that argument clearly shows that trumptman is motivated by his ideal, not by is concern for the safety of the patient.
Furthermore, it really is important to remember that in some states girls can be married at 13. You might not like it, but that's democracy for you. If you don't like democracy, move to Iraq. In other words, there are regions in the US, and across the globe, where people do not think it is too young. In fact, while looking this up, I noticed that until the turn of the century, age of consent was ~10 here in the US. In fact, many developed countries have age of consent at ~13.
I appreciate your reply giant. It is informed and thoughtful. However it misses on a couple of points. First it makes a couple of clear distinctions.
Quote:
Two cases were recently discussed in the AdolescentCenter that prompted an investigation of mandatory reporting laws in the state of Missouri for consensual sexual activity of teens:
The example I mentioned did not involve two teens. The Missouri laws even make distinctions between first and second degree statutory rape. They mention the California law would absolutely require reporting.
Quote:
In the state of California, mandated reporting responsibilities are made clear. In 1998, the California Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program (SRVP) was implemented. The new law requires reporting of unlawful sexual intercourse (statutory rape) between a minor under age 16 and an adult 21 or older, or for sexual activity between a minor under age 14 with a partner age 14 or older. The new law also requires reporting of ?lewd and lascivious acts upon a child? when one partner is 14 or 15 and is sexually active with a partner at least 10 years older. Providers are not required to ask about a partner?s age, and the presence of pregnancy or STD diagnosis does not mandate a report.
This was more for bunge than you since he still doesn't believe them require to report. There are also some important distinctions to make. Planned Parenthood does not have to seek this information. However if they come upon it, they should report. This is true for most abuse reports I have had to file as well. I don't go around demanding information from children in attempts to file abuse reports. However if it falls in my lap, I have to report. Planned Parenthood should as well.
In the Missouri law, it seems more like a loophole that might be closed or reintepreted depending upon the person.
It mentions that the reporting law doesn't mention statutory rape and when questioned they said this.
Quote:
Similarly, if the child is participating in sexual activity because of neglect on the adult caretaker?s part, the situation should be reported to DFS.
So if a 13 year old is able to have sex with a 22 year old without the knowlege of the adult. Does that constitute neglect? Possibly.
(9) "Neglect", failure to provide, by those responsible for the care, custody, and control of the child, the proper or necessary support, education as required by law, nutrition or medical, surgical, or any other care necessary for the child's well-being;
How do you determine if this incident was neglect of the caretaker? An investigation of course which you have to report to bring about.
I will concede that it is a hard statute to understand and likely could be argued either way. I would bet it will be made clearly with its next revision or by the courts.
I have been completely honest and unchanging in my view in this thread. 13 year olds cannot give consent. They have been molested or raped. Do not stop the abortion, but report the abuse.
You are welcome to quote any post in this thread where you think I have said something different from that.
If you cannot admit that the linked article is blatantly anti-abortion and the child abuse angle is just a smokescreen then you are a liar, a fool or both.
I'll quote from the last paragraph in case you're wavering:
Quote:
A set of legal rules that allows secret abortions for any girl, no matter how young, increases the number of abortions performed. It is easy to understand why a chain of abortion clinics wants such rules. Planned Parenthood sells abortion services. They want the demand for their services to be as high as possible. They want the costs associated with getting an abortion (other than their fees) to be as low as possible. The rest of us need not genuflect to Planned Parenthood's combination of economic interests and pro-abortion ideology.
At least the article has the honesty to admit what they want: less abortions.
If you cannot admit that the linked article is blatantly anti-abortion and the child abuse angle is just a smokescreen then you are a liar, a fool or both.
I'll quote from the last paragraph in case you're wavering:
At least the article has the honesty to admit what they want: less abortions.
That article isn't anti-abortion. Nor is ifeminist.com anti-abortion.
From their FAQ...
Quote:
# Opposing affirmative action and defending property rights is generally associated with conservatives. Isn't ifeminism just conservative feminism?
Many conservatives are uncomfortable with the way ifeminism embraces radical civil liberties. For example, ifeminism calls for the decriminalization of prostitution and pornography. To an ifeminist, there is no schism between economic and civil liberties. They are both expressions of an individual's right to use her own body and property in any peaceful manner she chooses. (back to top)
# Does this mean ifeminism supports abortion rights?
This is a controversy within ifeminism. The majority of opinion is pro-choice on the grounds of a woman's self-ownership. A vocal minority within ifeminism, however, oppose abortion. They believe that the developing fetus can rightfully claim the same human rights as a newborn baby. (back to top)
That second position would be the position of the Democratic Party. There are pro-life elements within the Democratic Party, but the clear majority are pro-choice. The same is true in reverse for the Republican Party.
Even Bill Clinton wanted fewer abortions. In fact his standard line was that he wanted abortions safe and rare or something of that nature. Nobody should WANT abortions. They are a horrible answer to a series of typically bad events. They are the answer of last resort. We shouldn't want more people having to exercise their last resort. It would be like wanting more brain tumor surgeries or more bankruptcies filed.
Wanting less of a last result does not mean you are against it. Having a financial interest in something is a reason to question the motives of those breaking the law. Planned Parenthood does have a financial motive in abortions so it should be questioned as to why they would seek so many attempts to reach for 10-13 year olds. They don't counsel them to not have sex with the 22 year old. They hand her some condoms and send her out again to become a repeat customer. If they truly cared about her, they would refer her to a counselor who could teach her how to not let a grown man exploit her.
We come to [the abortion] issue as men and women, young and old, some far beyond years when we have to worry about getting pregnant, others too young to remember what it was like in the days before Roe v. Wade. But I think it?s essential that as Americans we look for that common ground that we can all stand upon. [Our] core beliefs and values. can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century.
Source: Hillary Clinton Remarks to NARAL, Washington DC Jan 22, 1999
Rare - Infrequently occurring; uncommon
Seems like by your reasoning Bill and Hillary are "pro-life."
That article specifically names its enemy as the 'abortion lobby' and its 'ideology.' Every point is an argument specifically against the 'abortion lobby' or 'pro-abortion lobby.' Then it misrepresents opposing arguments. Them's fightin words.
Guess that makes you a liar or a fool then, as it quite clearly is.
And quoting something that says "a vocal minority within ifeminism, however, oppose abortion" is the lynchpin of your argument? (I'll note also that I never called the site anti-abortion, just the article, despite your attempted correction)
As for Hillary, I assume that she wants (as I do) better sex education and consequent prevention of unwanted pregnancies rather to prevent those seeking abortions from having them done safely and legally.
That article specifically names its enemy as the 'abortion lobby' and its 'ideology.' Every point is an argument specifically against the 'abortion lobby' or 'pro-abortion lobby.' Then it misrepresents opposing arguments. Them's fightin words.
Names it's enemy? What are you smoking? It says abortion providers should report abuse. It doesn't speak against legalized abortion in any regard. It doesn't even claim that 13 year shouldn't get her abortion.
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Guess that makes you a liar or a fool then, as it quite clearly is.
And quoting something that says "a vocal minority within ifeminism, however, oppose abortion" is the lynchpin of your argument? (I'll note also that I never called the site anti-abortion, just the article, despite your attempted correction)
As for Hillary, I assume that she wants (as I do) better sex education and consequent prevention of unwanted pregnancies rather to prevent those seeking abortions from having them done safely and legally.
Ah but the claim of desiring fewer abortions was a claim of being "pro-life" by you. As I said abortion is the last option. Wanting people to have more options to exercise and thus avoiding that last is not "pro-life." It is reasonable and caring.
As for your liar or fool rhetoric. You just prove that since you can't beat the argument you attack the source. To claim compassion for supporting 13 year olds getting no assistance but an abortion while being exploited by a 22 year old man is the height of foolishness. I don't seek to give her fewer rights. I seek to give her more assistance by having them investigate the abuse and give her what is necessary to help her IN ADDITION TO THE ABORTION.
You give her the abortion, give her some condoms and send her back out to be exploited again.
You have to attack the source since no one in their right mind would call that compassion.
Guess that makes you a liar or a fool then, trumptman.
It's and argument with the 'pro-abortion lobby.' That's who the bad guy is in her article. The 'abortion lobby' and its 'ideology.' Every single point is directed at the 'pro-abortion lobby.'
The article does not say 'Planned Parenthood' thinks such and such, it says the 'pro-abortion lobby' thinks such and such and they are wrong. The argument is against the 'pro-abortion lobby' much more than against planned parenthood.
Guess that makes you a liar or a fool then, trumptman.
It's and argument with the 'pro-abortion lobby.' That's who the bad guy is in her article. The 'abortion lobby' and its 'ideology.' Every single point is directed at the 'pro-abortion lobby.'
The article does not say 'Planned Parenthood' thinks such and such, it says the 'pro-abortion lobby' thinks such and such and they are wrong. The argument is against the 'pro-abortion lobby' much more than against planned parenthood.
Ignorance is bliss, so you must be very blissful.
By your definition simply making the argument that the pro-abortion lobby do anything is an argument against abortion.
The pro-abortion lobby should give free abortions.
Oh my god, that is a pro-life argument against the pro-abortion lobby!!
It is not who, but what.
The pro-abortion lobby should report molesters and rapists is not a pro-life argument or restricting abortion in anyway.
I put this in the top 10 dumbest insults here on AO. It's wild that you manage to butcher such a simple insult you picked up from the people you spend the most time with: 10 year olds.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
yappity, yap yap
I can't figure out whether you are just totally in denial or if you just pretend you are to entertain yourself.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Yes and you don't want to discourage children from getting an education, or parents from getting their children medical care.
Yet those groups are required to report. Even if they end up inconveniencing the innocent they have to report.
Is the 13 year old going to become unpregnant by some other means? She will still get the abortion. Afterwards she MAY, have to put up with her parents finding out about the abortion, or deal with her 22 year old boyfriend being questioned as to why he so enjoys 7th grade girls with braces.
The assumptions about who finds out and how it is dealt with are named by Planned Parenthood as an argument against reporting. If it is possible to give a girl an abortion without her parents knowing, then it is possible to interview her about potential abuse without her parents knowing.
Now suppose the worse case and they found out. The abortion is already performed. The parents can't do anything about that. They can't pressure her to have the baby, etc. Perhaps they will take more of an interest in who their child "dates" or how she was able to be pressured into having sex with a 22 year old to begin with. Maybe they will get her some counseling that helps her understand that a 22 year old boy doesn't have anything in common with her besides wanting to screw her.
It is amazing to me that you can think of no way reporting this would help these girls. Abortion doesn't "help" the problem. It allows the consequences of it to be delayed to another day. The fact that this girl thinks attention and sex with a 22 year old is love and caring won't change with that abortion. It won't make her realize that she doesn't have to give up sex to get love and be wanted. It won't make her realize that a man should treasure her brain as well.
Nick
Well maybe, but in general 13 years pregnant girl do not have great parents (there is exception as always). So you should not wait to many great things coming from their parents or her environnement.
In a perfect world, a 13 years girl should not date with A 22 years boy. But this happens, and people have to deal with the imperfection, and in practice sometimes the best solutions are not the one who respect more the morality. It's sad, but it's life (at least an aspect of it).
If you don't want people to have abortion just come out and say so. Don't try and weasel entirely unwarranted disclosure laws that will scare away potential clients of abortion clinics.
And can we take the hysterical "think of the children!" rhetoric down a notch or two? It's plain undignified.
then the counsellor should explain to her the details of the statutory rape laws in her state, why those laws exist, why she may not have the capacity to consent to sex, and then ask her if she would like to press charges. If she does not want to press charges, the center must honor her wishes and maintain confidentiality. There is no question about that. Privacy comes first.
anyone else see the inherent irony in asking someone whether they would like to press charges in this situation, after you acknowledge that they may not have the capacity to have consented in the first place?
at 13 you're too young. if it's statuatory rape, you should report. it's the law, and it's the law for a reason. predatory sex crimes are not where you decide to get stuck on privacy.
in our society children are accorded less privacy expressly because they aren't old/mature enough to make every decision for themselves.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
If I claim that you're blowing this situation out of all proportion because of your fundamentally anti-abortion/pro-life beliefs will you deny it again in this thread?
If you don't want people to have abortion just come out and say so. Don't try and weasel entirely unwarranted disclosure laws that will scare away potential clients of abortion clinics.
And can we take the hysterical "think of the children!" rhetoric down a notch or two? It's plain undignified.
I believe the last thread in which we both discussed abortion was the My Body My Choice: For Men Too thread.
I don't believe I advocated against abortion in either thread.
I have been completely honest and unchanging in my view in this thread. 13 year olds cannot give consent. They have been molested or raped. Do not stop the abortion, but report the abuse.
You are welcome to quote any post in this thread where you think I have said something different from that.
Nick
You are completely ignoring the educational aspect of the pregnancy and of the interview with the counsellor.
sure, but can you really expect a half hour session with a counsellor to undue months and/or years of abuse and mind games from her partner?
http://www.stlouischildrens.org/arti...nal.asp?ID=781
There are some very interesting points here.
As pointed out in the article:
Are there drawbacks to filing a report with DFS? Adolescents may be angered by the breach of confidentiality and may not return for health-care services. Parents may feel resentful of the intrusion and defensive about their parenting abilities and may not allow their child to return for care. In the first case above, the patient may not yet feel ready to discuss his homosexual lifestyle with his parents or with a caseworker. Forcing disclosure could result in anger, depression, ostracism, running away, or at worst, suicide.
Also important are the distinction made about sexual activity with a guardian:
The above Missouri statute does not include language regarding ?statutory rape.? When DFS was contacted and asked about reporting cases of statutory rape, case workers reiterated that reports should be made only if the consensual sexual contact is a manifestation of abuse or neglect._ If the older partner has ?care, custody or control? of the minor partner, DFS caseworkers and our social work and sexual abuse management teams at SLCH agree the sexual activity should be reported to DFS. Similarly, if the child is participating in sexual activity because of neglect on the adult caretaker?s part, the situation should be reported to DFS. If the health-care provider is unsure whether a report is necessary, DFS encourages calls, as the DFS caseworker can help the health- care provider determine whether action is necessary. The DFS caseworker will decide whether the information will be filed as a ?referral? (may or may not act on information) or as a ?report? (information will be investigated, police may be notified).
See, the problem with trumptman's view is that it's the position of an ideologue, and we all know what those positions end up creating. He has a view that works within his ideal world model. But in the real world, physicians have to make decisions regarding specific incidents that aren't going to fit into trumptman's imaginary world.
Is it worth it to report it if the teen then commits suicide? Trumptman argues that it is, though that argument clearly shows that trumptman is motivated by his ideal, not by is concern for the safety of the patient.
Furthermore, it really is important to remember that in some states girls can be married at 13. You might not like it, but that's democracy for you. If you don't like democracy, move to Iraq. In other words, there are regions in the US, and across the globe, where people do not think it is too young. In fact, while looking this up, I noticed that until the turn of the century, age of consent was ~10 here in the US. In fact, many developed countries have age of consent at ~13.
Originally posted by bunge
I'm still not convinced that PP has to report.
Well, it looks like they don't have to in missouri. I suppose we could just make or look for a list.
there's a list of the age of consent. except for Hawaii, the age of consent is 16 and up unless they have consent of the parents.
along the lines of getting married at 13, how can you be married when having sex with your wife would be rape?
i'm still missing under what circumstances it's a good idea NOT to report statuatory rape with a 13 year old, irregardless of the possible outcomes.
lol, along the lines of giant's suggesntion, i put in "planned parenthood report statutory rape"
the first link was to how child predators use Planned Parenthood to hide their actions. Bravo!
more bits n' pieces
The firm, Life Dynamics, Inc., based in Denton, Texas, said in an eight-page summary of its data that "among girls 15 and younger who become pregnant, between 60 percent and 80 percent of them are impregnated by adult men." Some girls are even as young as 10 years old, said the summary.
"In America today, we have reached the point where a junior high-school girl is more likely to become pregnant by an adult than by someone close to her own age," said the summary. "One study concluded that the average age of men who father children with girls under 14 is now higher than the average age of men who father children with 18-year-olds."
note: "research group" here is completely biased i'm sure. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=27687
Originally posted by alcimedes
i'm still missing under what circumstances it's a good idea NOT to report statuatory rape with a 13 year old, irregardless of the possible outcomes.
Regardless.
If PP isn't mandated to report then there have been many good reasons discussed. The health of the girl, both mentally and physically, is paramount. 'Reporting' would be secondary to this concern.
Originally posted by giant
A quick google search brought up this:
http://www.stlouischildrens.org/arti...nal.asp?ID=781
There are some very interesting points here.
As pointed out in the article:
Also important are the distinction made about sexual activity with a guardian:
See, the problem with trumptman's view is that it's the position of an ideologue, and we all know what those positions end up creating. He has a view that works within his ideal world model. But in the real world, physicians have to make decisions regarding specific incidents that aren't going to fit into trumptman's imaginary world.
Is it worth it to report it if the teen then commits suicide? Trumptman argues that it is, though that argument clearly shows that trumptman is motivated by his ideal, not by is concern for the safety of the patient.
Furthermore, it really is important to remember that in some states girls can be married at 13. You might not like it, but that's democracy for you. If you don't like democracy, move to Iraq. In other words, there are regions in the US, and across the globe, where people do not think it is too young. In fact, while looking this up, I noticed that until the turn of the century, age of consent was ~10 here in the US. In fact, many developed countries have age of consent at ~13.
I appreciate your reply giant. It is informed and thoughtful. However it misses on a couple of points. First it makes a couple of clear distinctions.
Two cases were recently discussed in the AdolescentCenter that prompted an investigation of mandatory reporting laws in the state of Missouri for consensual sexual activity of teens:
The example I mentioned did not involve two teens. The Missouri laws even make distinctions between first and second degree statutory rape. They mention the California law would absolutely require reporting.
In the state of California, mandated reporting responsibilities are made clear. In 1998, the California Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program (SRVP) was implemented. The new law requires reporting of unlawful sexual intercourse (statutory rape) between a minor under age 16 and an adult 21 or older, or for sexual activity between a minor under age 14 with a partner age 14 or older. The new law also requires reporting of ?lewd and lascivious acts upon a child? when one partner is 14 or 15 and is sexually active with a partner at least 10 years older. Providers are not required to ask about a partner?s age, and the presence of pregnancy or STD diagnosis does not mandate a report.
This was more for bunge than you since he still doesn't believe them require to report. There are also some important distinctions to make. Planned Parenthood does not have to seek this information. However if they come upon it, they should report. This is true for most abuse reports I have had to file as well. I don't go around demanding information from children in attempts to file abuse reports. However if it falls in my lap, I have to report. Planned Parenthood should as well.
In the Missouri law, it seems more like a loophole that might be closed or reintepreted depending upon the person.
It mentions that the reporting law doesn't mention statutory rape and when questioned they said this.
Similarly, if the child is participating in sexual activity because of neglect on the adult caretaker?s part, the situation should be reported to DFS.
So if a 13 year old is able to have sex with a 22 year old without the knowlege of the adult. Does that constitute neglect? Possibly.
Definitions
(9) "Neglect", failure to provide, by those responsible for the care, custody, and control of the child, the proper or necessary support, education as required by law, nutrition or medical, surgical, or any other care necessary for the child's well-being;
How do you determine if this incident was neglect of the caretaker? An investigation of course which you have to report to bring about.
I will concede that it is a hard statute to understand and likely could be argued either way. I would bet it will be made clearly with its next revision or by the courts.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I have been completely honest and unchanging in my view in this thread. 13 year olds cannot give consent. They have been molested or raped. Do not stop the abortion, but report the abuse.
You are welcome to quote any post in this thread where you think I have said something different from that.
If you cannot admit that the linked article is blatantly anti-abortion and the child abuse angle is just a smokescreen then you are a liar, a fool or both.
I'll quote from the last paragraph in case you're wavering:
A set of legal rules that allows secret abortions for any girl, no matter how young, increases the number of abortions performed. It is easy to understand why a chain of abortion clinics wants such rules. Planned Parenthood sells abortion services. They want the demand for their services to be as high as possible. They want the costs associated with getting an abortion (other than their fees) to be as low as possible. The rest of us need not genuflect to Planned Parenthood's combination of economic interests and pro-abortion ideology.
At least the article has the honesty to admit what they want: less abortions.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
If you cannot admit that the linked article is blatantly anti-abortion and the child abuse angle is just a smokescreen then you are a liar, a fool or both.
I'll quote from the last paragraph in case you're wavering:
At least the article has the honesty to admit what they want: less abortions.
That article isn't anti-abortion. Nor is ifeminist.com anti-abortion.
From their FAQ...
# Opposing affirmative action and defending property rights is generally associated with conservatives. Isn't ifeminism just conservative feminism?
Many conservatives are uncomfortable with the way ifeminism embraces radical civil liberties. For example, ifeminism calls for the decriminalization of prostitution and pornography. To an ifeminist, there is no schism between economic and civil liberties. They are both expressions of an individual's right to use her own body and property in any peaceful manner she chooses. (back to top)
# Does this mean ifeminism supports abortion rights?
This is a controversy within ifeminism. The majority of opinion is pro-choice on the grounds of a woman's self-ownership. A vocal minority within ifeminism, however, oppose abortion. They believe that the developing fetus can rightfully claim the same human rights as a newborn baby. (back to top)
That second position would be the position of the Democratic Party. There are pro-life elements within the Democratic Party, but the clear majority are pro-choice. The same is true in reverse for the Republican Party.
Even Bill Clinton wanted fewer abortions. In fact his standard line was that he wanted abortions safe and rare or something of that nature. Nobody should WANT abortions. They are a horrible answer to a series of typically bad events. They are the answer of last resort. We shouldn't want more people having to exercise their last resort. It would be like wanting more brain tumor surgeries or more bankruptcies filed.
Wanting less of a last result does not mean you are against it. Having a financial interest in something is a reason to question the motives of those breaking the law. Planned Parenthood does have a financial motive in abortions so it should be questioned as to why they would seek so many attempts to reach for 10-13 year olds. They don't counsel them to not have sex with the 22 year old. They hand her some condoms and send her out again to become a repeat customer. If they truly cared about her, they would refer her to a counselor who could teach her how to not let a grown man exploit her.
Nick
Source: Hillary Clinton Remarks to NARAL, Washington DC Jan 22, 1999
Rare - Infrequently occurring; uncommon
Seems like by your reasoning Bill and Hillary are "pro-life."
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
That article isn't anti-abortion.
That article specifically names its enemy as the 'abortion lobby' and its 'ideology.' Every point is an argument specifically against the 'abortion lobby' or 'pro-abortion lobby.' Then it misrepresents opposing arguments. Them's fightin words.
Originally posted by trumptman
That article isn't anti-abortion.
Guess that makes you a liar or a fool then, as it quite clearly is.
And quoting something that says "a vocal minority within ifeminism, however, oppose abortion" is the lynchpin of your argument? (I'll note also that I never called the site anti-abortion, just the article, despite your attempted correction)
As for Hillary, I assume that she wants (as I do) better sex education and consequent prevention of unwanted pregnancies rather to prevent those seeking abortions from having them done safely and legally.
Originally posted by giant
That article specifically names its enemy as the 'abortion lobby' and its 'ideology.' Every point is an argument specifically against the 'abortion lobby' or 'pro-abortion lobby.' Then it misrepresents opposing arguments. Them's fightin words.
Names it's enemy? What are you smoking? It says abortion providers should report abuse. It doesn't speak against legalized abortion in any regard. It doesn't even claim that 13 year shouldn't get her abortion.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Guess that makes you a liar or a fool then, as it quite clearly is.
And quoting something that says "a vocal minority within ifeminism, however, oppose abortion" is the lynchpin of your argument? (I'll note also that I never called the site anti-abortion, just the article, despite your attempted correction)
As for Hillary, I assume that she wants (as I do) better sex education and consequent prevention of unwanted pregnancies rather to prevent those seeking abortions from having them done safely and legally.
Ah but the claim of desiring fewer abortions was a claim of being "pro-life" by you. As I said abortion is the last option. Wanting people to have more options to exercise and thus avoiding that last is not "pro-life." It is reasonable and caring.
As for your liar or fool rhetoric. You just prove that since you can't beat the argument you attack the source. To claim compassion for supporting 13 year olds getting no assistance but an abortion while being exploited by a 22 year old man is the height of foolishness. I don't seek to give her fewer rights. I seek to give her more assistance by having them investigate the abuse and give her what is necessary to help her IN ADDITION TO THE ABORTION.
You give her the abortion, give her some condoms and send her back out to be exploited again.
You have to attack the source since no one in their right mind would call that compassion.
Nick
It's and argument with the 'pro-abortion lobby.' That's who the bad guy is in her article. The 'abortion lobby' and its 'ideology.' Every single point is directed at the 'pro-abortion lobby.'
The article does not say 'Planned Parenthood' thinks such and such, it says the 'pro-abortion lobby' thinks such and such and they are wrong. The argument is against the 'pro-abortion lobby' much more than against planned parenthood.
Originally posted by giant
Guess that makes you a liar or a fool then, trumptman.
It's and argument with the 'pro-abortion lobby.' That's who the bad guy is in her article. The 'abortion lobby' and its 'ideology.' Every single point is directed at the 'pro-abortion lobby.'
The article does not say 'Planned Parenthood' thinks such and such, it says the 'pro-abortion lobby' thinks such and such and they are wrong. The argument is against the 'pro-abortion lobby' much more than against planned parenthood.
Ignorance is bliss, so you must be very blissful.
By your definition simply making the argument that the pro-abortion lobby do anything is an argument against abortion.
The pro-abortion lobby should give free abortions.
Oh my god, that is a pro-life argument against the pro-abortion lobby!!
It is not who, but what.
The pro-abortion lobby should report molesters and rapists is not a pro-life argument or restricting abortion in anyway.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Ignorance is bliss, so you must be very blissful.
I put this in the top 10 dumbest insults here on AO. It's wild that you manage to butcher such a simple insult you picked up from the people you spend the most time with: 10 year olds.
Originally posted by trumptman
yappity, yap yap
I can't figure out whether you are just totally in denial or if you just pretend you are to entertain yourself.