Say Anything Blog

Why stop with a 15 year old?  Would the advise be any different if she were 13 and the guy was 27?

Planned Parenthood doesn’t ask for an ID. Anyone can walk in and lie about their age and get an abortion. Just as long as you can PAY for it…

Ah euro-secular baby killing. It just gets me all giddy. You guys should meet my friend that works in an underground abortion clinic. I bet y’all would really like her!

This girl is probably Polish anyway. Sneeze near one of those girls and babies just start pouring out.

Why is it that we can try 15 year olds as adults for murder, but they can’t get abortions on their own? Double standard? Can’t have it both ways now can we?

Sparkie, given your rhetoric, I’d suggest that we really ought to prosecute your teachers for child abuse if the statute of limitations hasn’t run out.  They clearly did not teach you basic logic, and something went awry with ethics as well.  You’ve been abused, fella.

Seriously, if you cannot see that it’s wrong for an adult male (usually) to impregnate a teen girl, and why we would want to prosecute those who do so, I really don’t know what to say to you.

Except that you have a profoundly underdeveloped sense of morality.

Seriously, if you cannot see that it’s wrong for an adult male (usually) to impregnate a teen girl, and why we would want to prosecute those who do so, I really don’t know what to say to you.

The bible says its okay. What’s the big deal?

That’s false.  The only thing that comes remotely close is actually the imposition of a penalty--payment of a bride price or dowry--upon anyone who seduces a young woman/virgin.  Notice young “woman,” not “girl.” Anyone caught with someone below the age of womanhood would have been stood up against a wall and killed as a rapist.

Robert Perry

Anyone caught with someone below the age of womanhood would have been stood up against a wall and killed as a rapist.

You fail to mention that in those days the criterion for womanhood was menstration which occurs sometime between the ages of 10 and 13. In biblical times, girls would be married VERY early and would begin to have babies as soon as they could. No amount of blithering will change that.

Do I really think that’s fine? No. I’m just agitating. IMO its a double standard to try 15 year olds for murder and not allow them to have abortions on their own, though.

The bible says its okay. What’s the big deal?

If you are married to her, you are correct that the Bible says sex is OK.  But the Bible says that sex is only ok within the bounds of marriage. 

Our society regulates marriage and all states have a parental consent law that requires minors to get the permission of their parents before they can enter into marriage.  You gotta be 18 to get married unless your parents allow it.  And then in most cases states have laws forbidding minors under 16 to get married even with parental permission.

Why not make abortion laws match marriage laws?  A minor should no more be allowed to get an abortion without parental consent than to get an ear pierced without parental consent than to get married without parental consent.  And each state regulates what constitutes Statuatory rape and a minor has no right to “consent” to sexual relations outside of the age requirements contained in these laws.  Statuatory rape is a felony in most states and requires registration as a sex offender in many places.

Come on man, don’t minimize that a 25 year old banging a 15 year old is fucked up and society needs to have laws to stop this sort of behavior.  If 25 year olds banging 15 year olds ain’t a problem, then 50 year olds doing it with 13 year olds isn’t either.  While we may agree that there are differences between a 50 year old having sex with a 10 year old and a 25 year old having sex with a 15 year old, child molestation is not statuatory rape either.  If you have problems with these laws, then by all means, lobby your local and state government to change them.  But clearly short of these laws changing, Abortion providers are compelled to report violations and to follow the laws of the state.  If you (in your anarchist mind) can justify the breaking of the law because these folks have an ideological opinion that the law is wrong, that slippery slope effectively strips our entire society of the rule of law and the ability to form a society.  Sometimes I don’t like the law, but it is through my submission to it that we can build a society.  You have two choices--follow the law, or engage in a Jeffersonian revolution because you believe the government is tyranical and the rule of law and the mode of government is no longer just.  There is no grey area.

I’d be equally upset if a hospital refused to call the police if this girl and the father of her child carried the baby to term.

BTW, I am a libertarian, not a social conservative.  I don’t disagree that our laws need changing and that we need a more free society.  I simply disagree that my ideological view entitles me to break the law.  My recourse is simple:

Vote
--or--
Overthrow the government

Otherwise I must simply follow the law or face the legal consequences.  You are touching on Anarchist.  You are moving from Libertarian and Jeffersonian to Anarchist and that has wide ranging implications that require much serious thought.  If you truly are an anarchist, go all the way and start firebombing government buildings to bring down this mockery of a government we have.  Otherwise, you are an anarchist without balls.  You claim that you want people to be able to ignore the law but you don’t take a real stand and either change the law or start trying to destroy the repressive government that makes unjust laws.  Be a patriot and fight the government.  That is your duty in the face of tyrany.

I’d be equally upset if a hospital refused to call the police if this girl and the father of her child carried the baby to term.

As would I.  But in this case, the state can do genetic testing on the child and the police are automatically contacted in these situations.  When the abortion is performed, the evidence of the crime (DNA) is destroyed and discarded.

Sparkie, even if your claim was correct, you make no point.  The ugly reality is that the Scriptures prescribe a heavy penalty for anyone who seduces a young woman; a dowry payment.  This was an amount of money that would be set aside to support the woman (again, WOMAN) if the husband left her--it was no small issue.

That said, the witness of the Scriptures is that a woman would be physically and emotionally mature before marriage.

And yes, we try children for murder.  As they mature, they become morally responsible.  At the same time, it’s also a fact that there are some decisions they’re too young to make.  Sex and marriage are two of them, and to refuse to enforce the Biblical position on seduction--that it’s a moral WRONG-- is to leave young girls defenseless against predatory men.

Robert Perry
I could give a finer f**k what the scriptures say, frankly.

And yes, we try children for murder.  As they mature, they become morally responsible.  At the same time, it’s also a fact that there are some decisions they’re too young to make.  Sex and marriage are two of them, and to refuse to enforce the Biblical position on seduction--that it’s a moral WRONG-- is to leave young girls defenseless against predatory men.

The argument that underage people should have parents consent has to do with the fact that they may not have an appropriate overall grip on right and wrong and consequences and so forth. Same rationalization for not trying them as adults for murder. You have not avoided a double standard. The scriptures are not the end all be all on anything. Those men used to have sex with sheep. Do you hold that beastiality is fine too? GMAB.

Um, Sparkie, if you look up Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, you’ll see exactly how Scripture treats the issue of bestiality.  It was a capital offense, and there is no record in the Scriptures of anyone actually doing this.  To suggest that the Patriarchs had sex with their livestock is a crude slander on your part.

And yes, we draw different lines for some measure of maturity than others.  That does refute the concept of drawing those lines to correspond with moral and ethical capabilities, but reinforces it as a reasonable application. 

Yes, reasonable.  The basic reality is that deciding not to kill is a much simpler matter than selecting someone to have sex with, especially when we consider the basic reality of “hormones.”

Hence, just as the Israelites levied heavy fines on those who seduced young women, we put people in jail for statutory rape.  To fail to do so leaves young women unprotected.

To fail to do so leaves young women unprotected.

What about their positive autonomy? You seem to think that they are unable to consent to sex. Just because men may take advantage of them doesn’t mean they should be punished by having their positive autonomy curbed, negated, or restricted? I mean if you are fine with trying kids for murder, this should appeal to you, correct?

Yes, girls in their mid teens are generally unable to make sound decisions about having sex.  If you doubt this, take a look at teen abortion rates, STD infection rates, rates of “domestic abuse” (which is defined really more as “abuse in a relationship"), breakup rates, relationship-linked depression, and more.

And hence we, as you say, “curb” teen sexual expression to reduce this, just as we “curb” teen violence expression to prevent a lot of dead bodies lying around.  In the same way, we “curb” our freedom as adults in many ways to prevent the same kind of thing.

As one who doesn’t like to see dead bodies lying all around, I appreciate this.  You may differ with this, and if so, please keep your distance.

As one who doesn’t like to see dead bodies lying all around, I appreciate this.

I don’t think that locking up 15 year olds for the rest of their lives has anything to do with the amount of bodies laying around. When it comes to sentencing and whatnot, I am a minimalist. I don’t believe in sentencing guidlines. There are always mitigating factors and being 15 is a big one for me. I am also more motivated by protecting society than I am by retributional justice. I just don’t buy retributional justice at all beyond connecting the perp to the crime.

Alright. I gotta bust out like 5 more images and go home. Tornado warning in Providence, RI right now. Bizarre.

Yes, girls in their mid teens are generally unable to make sound decisions about having sex.

Sparkie, at what point do you believe that a minor has the capacity to make decisions on their own without parental consent, be they sexual decisions, financial decisions, healthcare decisions, etc.?

I am inclined to believe that despite Sparkies belief that 14 year olds are capable of choosing what to do with their bodies, 8th graders having sex, especially with adults over the age of 18 is beyond wrong and that our society has every right to prohibit and punish this behavior.

I don’t think that locking up 15 year olds for the rest of their lives has anything to do with the amount of bodies laying around. When it comes to sentencing and whatnot, I am a minimalist. I don’t believe in sentencing guidlines. There are always mitigating factors and being 15 is a big one for me. I am also more motivated by protecting society

I really don’t think that planned parenthood telling girls to lie about their age to get abortions is equivalent or even related to whether juveniles are tried as adults in criminal cases.  You are just throwing bullshit up so that you can avoid the actual issue--that Planned Parenthood is committing a crime.  Do you agree or disagree that based on existing laws, not only is PP committing a crime by ignoring the Parental consent laws, but they are also committing a crime by concealing evidence of statuatory rape?  Let’s leave all the other bullshit arguments aside, do you agree with these two statemtns?

Justin B

Do you agree or disagree that based on existing laws, not only is PP committing a crime by ignoring the Parental consent laws, but they are also committing a crime by concealing evidence of statuatory rape?

Its clearly criminal to lie about one’s age to get an abortion and not tell the folks. However, its not illegal not to disclose evidence of statutory rape. Is it? I don’t think so. Patient - doctor confidentiality is important. As long as the parents know… its not criminal. If I know of a statutory rape and don’t turn someone in, that’s not illegal is it? If I see a jaywalker and don’t turn them in, that’s not illegal is it? A weed smoker? Where does the legal line get drawn. I don’t know. My girl probably does.

I don’t necessarily know what age is appropriate for sexual consent. I’m agnostic on that issue I guess. My point is merely that if we hold them responsible for murder its not consistent to not hold them responsible for sexual consent and abortions without their parents consent. I am against trying people under 18 for murder (as adults (they aren’t, duh)), so in the name of theoretical consistency, I would have to agree that parental consent is important in abortion and that statutory rape should be punished. Disclosure though… who knows. Are planned parenthood paperwork filers even considered doctors? Its definitely a grey area.

As far as laws go, I am a minimalist. I am not one who thinks that everything I perceive as immoral or wrong should be against the law. I believe in certain sacrifices in order to have less laws. Maybe I’m just a cold fuck. If there are differences of opinion, it probably shouldn’t be a law. I like vagueness and leniency. For example, if someone kills someone else in a bizarre situation (Mary comes home and finds her husband having sex with the dog for example) that is not premeditated, and does not pose a perceivable future risk to society (chances are Mary won’t be in that situation again), I don’t think they should be punished. I see justice as ONLY protecting society, not as retribution. I think prison should be more like quarantine - take the retribution out of it and its pretty much just a risk to society like someone with a contagious disease. I am super liberal in that respect. Oh well. Its just how I feel.

Does that help? Now you just think I’m nuts. Well, let me say that I have put a lot of thought into it and that’s how I feel… let me clarify…

We know, based on research and statistics, in an urban area with a certain ratio of commercial to residential buildings what the theft rates will be - fairly accurately too. So, when someone commits theft, and we know, based on certain causal scenarios that they exist in, that they would commit the theft, how can we appropriately hold them responsible in a manner that justifies retribution-based justice? I don’t think we can. Obviously this position needs a 150 page research tome to actually back up in a more resilient manner, but you get the point. I have thought about it. And I prefer a quarantine type scenario to prison. Deterrent justifications have also been proven false. Period. They have. Areas with CP actually have higher murder rates than those that don’t. Who knows why. Maybe if the government can justify murder, it makes it easier for citizens to. I take it, Justin, that since you are a libertarian, you do not support CP (capital punishment). The lack of objective guilt deciding processes also sway heavily on me. My punishment theory is pretty nutso eh? Just know I have thought about it a lot.

Robert Perry
On your contention that the Patriarchs had a law against beastiality on the books… so what? The existence of the law means it was probably a bit more widespread than one would like to admit. Look at the senator from Florida who was a ardent anti-pedophile. We all know that story. Look at the Catholic church. Priests are celibate, yet 100,000 abuse victims have come forward in the US alone. Its estimated that 80% never say a word about abuse. That puts the actual number somewhere around 500,000. 546 priests are under investigation in LA alone right now. Laws don’t mean crap and what happens ‘out in the fields’ stays in the fields. They did their sheep. That is not slanderous. Its true. The current pope was in charge of covering up pedophiles from 1978-2003. Charges were brought against him and he was granted immunity by president Bush. Did you know that Bush is an aider and abedder of pedophiles? Well, he is. That might give one or two of you pause for reflection eh?

All medical personnel in most states are required to report likely sexual crimes against children, and that’s exactly why this young lady went into PP with a tape recorder in the first place.  PP does a lot of abortions on young women, and very little reporting of statutory rape.  Put 2 & 2 together, and you’ve got an argument that crime is likely occurring.  Well said, Justin.

And Sparkie, with evidence such as that you present, I hope and pray that you never show up on a jury.  Sorry, but arguing that your prejudices constitutes “proof” of ancient bestiality suggests you belong with Rosie O’Donnell and other members of the tinfoil hat crowd.

Robert Perry
‘Proof’ is a little strong. Let’s try 98.5% likelihood. Keep praying bro. Maybe God will keep me off the jury. Whacknip.

I don’t think it’s most states, R. Perry.  It’s a handful, and PP should certainly be obeying the law in those states, but the problem is likely overstated.

Hey, if internal documents are found supporting violating the law, no matter how misguided it is, then PP should bear the brunt of the justice system.  Until then, we’re left with speculation.

Come on man, don’t minimize that a 25 year old banging a 15 year old is fucked up and society needs to have laws to stop this sort of behavior.

He’s not; he’s saying that Biblical literalism is jettisoned when politically convenient.  It’s cafeteria christianism.

Robert Perry
On a jury, my opinion doesn’t matter. Laws do. Remember? Anyways, you’re the one who wants to kill people for murder you have admitted aren’t mature enough to be rationale and fully responsible for their own choices. Don’t talk down to me. You are clearly the dangerous one.

Where does the legal line get drawn. I don’t know.

Purely pragmatically, the legal line is drawn by the respective state legislatures.  Most states require medical personnel to report possible sex crimes; however, states differ on what constitutes a reportable sex crime. 

A few months ago I dug into the state laws on this, and, to be honest, it all looks a bit haphazard.  Most of the laws require that sexual abuse must be reported, but the reporting statute then refers to a section in the penal code.  Since there are rarely any other inclusions or exclusions, it looks to me like whether statutory rape is within the reporting statute is purely an accident of whether statutory rape was included in a larger abuse statute or whether it’s got its own section of the state’s criminal code.

Now if y’all would actually read the article, you’d find (*AHEM*) that YES, California DOES require medical personnel to report likely abuse of children, including statutory rape.  And YES, most states do require this for obvious reasons.

And NO, I do not concede that a 15 year old is not competent to understand that murder is wrong, and in fact said just the opposite.  Again, y’all need to work on your “basic reading comprehension,” not to mention your understanding of what IS, and what is NOT, evidence.